Case Name: Mary Wiedmer v. New York Elevated R. R. Co.
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-10-12
Citations: 3 N.Y. St. Rep. 678
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Wiedmer v. New York Elevated R. R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 3
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
Mary Wiedmer v. New York Elevated R. R. Co.
(Court of Appeals,
Filed October 12, 1886.)
Appeal—New trial—Reversing order granting—When appeal prom,
WILL NOT BE DISMISSED.
An appeal may he taken directly to the court of appeals from a judgment entered on a verdict after a decision hy the general term reversing an order granting a new trial, and from the order of reversal, and such appeal will not he dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
This is a motion by plaintiff to dismiss defendant’s appeal.
The action was for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants.
The case is reported below. 2 N. Y. State Rep., 622.
Upon the trial at the circuit the defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case moved to dismiss, which motion was,denied and defendant excepted, and relying upon such exception offered no evidence. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff. The defendant moved the trial judge to set aside the verdict as contrary to the evidence, etc., which motion was granted and a new trial was ordered.
The plaintiff appealed to the general term, which reversed the order granting a new trial. Up to that time no judgment had been entered. Entry of judgment on the verdict was not directed by the opinion of the general term and the order of reversal entered in accordance therewith, but probably through inadvertence as to the state of the record stated that the judgment was affirmed. After the restoration of the verdict by the decision of the general term, plaintiff entered judgment thereon. From such judgments, and from the order of reversal, the defendant appeals to the court of appeals, and the plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal.
Jacob N. Gross with David Levy for motion; Howard Townsend with Messrs. Davis & Rapallo opposed.

Opinion:
Danforth, J.
Motion to dismiss appeal is put upon the sole ground that this court has not jurisdiction. The con trary is well settled. 39 N. Y., 369; Beecher v. Conradt, 11 How. Pr., 181.
The motion should be denied.
All concur.