From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luechinger v. Eichhammer

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 29, 1923
142 N.E. 282 (N.Y. 1923)

Opinion

Submitted May 8, 1923

Decided May 29, 1923

Ralph G. Barclay and William V. Burke for appellant.

Albert A. Arnold for respondent.


This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries. Defendants appeared separately. At Trial Term plaintiff recovered a verdict against both defendants. The defendant Reuther did not appeal therefrom. Defendant Eichhammer appealed to the Appellate Division, and that court reversed the judgment of the trial court as matter of law and dismissed the complaint. Upon the trial at the close of the evidence counsel for both defendants omitted to move for a dismissal of the complaint or a direction of a verdict, thereby conceding that there was evidence which justified a submission of the case to the jury. The Appellate Division was, therefore, powerless to reverse the judgment upon the law and hold as matter of law that there was no evidence in the case to establish plaintiff's cause of action. ( Murtha v. Ridley, 232 N.Y. 488; Caldwell v. Nicolson, 235 N.Y. 209; Eno v. Klein, 236 N.Y. 543.) The record is barren of any meritorious exceptions taken to the admission of evidence on the trial.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs to appellant in this court and the Appellate Division.

HISCOCK, Ch. J., HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Luechinger v. Eichhammer

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 29, 1923
142 N.E. 282 (N.Y. 1923)
Case details for

Luechinger v. Eichhammer

Case Details

Full title:URBAN LUECHINGER, an Infant, by JACOB LUECHINGER, His Guardian ad Litem…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 29, 1923

Citations

142 N.E. 282 (N.Y. 1923)
142 N.E. 282

Citing Cases

Behan v. Ivanhoe Company

At the close of the entire case the defendant failed to move to dismiss on the ground that it had not been…