The engineer’s certificate was a condition preeedent’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’with-'1 held or delayed. The affirmative of these questions was supported by sufficient evidence; they were submitted to the jury upon a charge clear; full, and fair 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.
14 N.Y.S. 886
Byron v. Bell et al.
(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
June 1, 1891.)
Appeal—Review—Weight op Evidence.
Where a case is submitted to the jury on a proper charge, and there is evidence to support the verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal. :
Appeal from trial term.
Action by John H. Byron against Edward T. Bell and others, as administrators of Henry B. Low, deceased, on contract to recover for work in the construction of a railroad. • From judgment on verdict, and from order denying motion for new trial, defendants appeal. For former report, see 10 N.Y. Supp. 698.
Argued before Bischoff and Pryor, JJ.
W. J. Groo, for appellants. L. Baflin Kellogg, for respondent.
Byron v. Bell
14 N.Y.S. 886
Case Details
14 N.Y.S. 886
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!