Case Name: John H. Byron, Resp't, v. Edward T. Bell et at., Adm'rs, App'lts
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-06-01
Citations: 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 57
Docket Number: 
Parties: John H. Byron, Resp’t, v. Edward T. Bell et at., Adm’rs, App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 39
Pages: 57–58

Head Matter:
John H. Byron, Resp’t, v. Edward T. Bell et at., Adm’rs, App’lts.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed June 1, 1891.)
Appeal—Evidence—Review.
Where a case is referred to a jury on evidence ample to sustain plaintiff’s contention, and by a charge free from just exception, the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal.
Appeal from judgment on verdict of a jury at a trial term, and from order denying motion for new trial. Action on contract to recover for work in the construction of a railroad.
W. J. Groo, for app’lts; L. Laflin Kellogg, for resp’t

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
—The engineer's certificate was a condition precedent to the plaintiff's right of recovery, and the principal questions litigated were whether demand was made for the certificate and whether it was unreasonably withheld or delayed. " The affirmative of these questions was supported by sufficient evidence; they were submitted to the jury upon a charge clear, full and far beyond criticism; and nothing appears.in the case to justify us in disturbing the verdict.
And so as to the minor issues. They, too, were referred to the jury on evidence ample to sustain the plaintiff's contention, and by a charge free from just exception.
On examination we find none of the alleged errors in law well imputed or maintained by reasoning cogent enough to require refutation.
Upon a careful review of the case we are satisfied with the verdict and with the conduct of the trial by the learned judge.
.Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Bischoff and Pryor, JJ. concur.