Case Name: PASSEY v. CRAIGHEAD
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-07-26
Citations: 35 N.Y.S. 36
Docket Number: 
Parties: PASSEY v. CRAIGHEAD.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 35
Pages: 36–37

Head Matter:
(89 Hun, 76.)
PASSEY v. CRAIGHEAD.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
July 26, 1895.)
Appeal—Review op Facts.
Facts can be reviewed only on an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial, and then only where the order has been duly entered.
Appeal from Westchester county court.
Action by George H. Passey against Horace Craighead to recover damages for the bite of a dog alleged to have been kept and maintained by defendant on his premises. Judgment was entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
William A. Boyd, for appellant.
Frederick W. Sherman, for respondent.

Opinion:
BROWN, P. J.
Thé facts in this case are not before the court for review. While the notice of appeal purports to be from an order denying a motion for a new trial, there is no such order in the case. The record states that a motion for a new trial was made upon the judge's minutes, and denied, and there is an exception to that ruling. That exception is not, however, available to the appellant on an appeal from the judgment. The facts can only be reviewed upon an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial, and, to give the court jurisdiction to hear such an appeal, the order denying the motion must be duly entered. Ehrman v. Rothschild, 23 Hun, 273; Boos v. Insurance Co., 64 N. Y. 242. None of the exceptions to the rulings of the court are well taken. The action was to recover damages sustained from the bite of a dog. The plaintiff testified to a conversation with the defendant which, if believed, showed the dog to be vicious, and that the defendant was aware of its character. This testimony required the submission of the case to the jury, and thé exception to the denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint cannot be sustained. The counsel has called our attention to many circumstances tending to weaken the plaintiff's testimony, but their consideration was all for the jury, and affect only the weight of the evidence. As we are confined, in our review of the case, to the consideration of legal questions, the argument is without weight. We have examined the exception to the rulings upon the admission of evidence and to the charge of the court, but none of them require the reversal of the judgment.
The order must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.