Griffiths v. Metropolitan Street R. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Russell v. Rhinehart

    137 App. Div. 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)   Cited 9 times
    In Russell v. Rhinehart (137 App. Div. 843) the practice adopted in the present case is condemned, but the conditions which called out that condemnation were different from those here existing.

    In the absence of a special verdict in this case, we are unable to determine what facts the jury deemed established, whether Reingold did or did not make the statement to defendant which defendant claims that he did; whether plaintiff did or did not assert his right to retain the money for services when defendant first spoke to him about it; or whether, even conceding all that defendant claimed to be true, a prudent man, exercising reasonable care, would have been justified in presuming that the act of plaintiff in retaining the money was criminal in character. The cases cited by the appellant in support of his contention that the verdict should be reinstated are cases where a special verdict was had in accordance with the provisions of section 1187. ( Sullivan v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 37 App. Div. 491; Griffiths v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 63 id. 86; Corson v. City of New York, 113 id. 679.) The case of Levy v. Grove Mills Paper Co. ( 80 App. Div. 384) was a case where a decision on a motion for a nonsuit was reserved, a general verdict was taken, and thereafter the verdict set aside and the complaint dismissed, and the exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division. The court in that case say that the practice was irregular, but it would appear from the record that the parties acquiesced in the action of the court in reinstating the verdict and entering judgment thereon.

  2. O'Sullivan v. Knox

    81 App. Div. 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1903)   Cited 4 times

    Several specific questions were submitted to the jury, but while it is stated that the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff it does not appear what answer was given to the several questions, as the form of the verdict is not returned. The dismissal brings up the record for review the same as if no verdict had been rendered. ( Griffiths v. Met. Street R. Co., 63 App. Div. 86; Bessenger v. Met. Street R. Co. 79 id. 32; 79 N.Y. Supp. 1017.) The complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was laid in negligence, and as the dereliction proved if any constituted a nuisance no recovery was permissible upon the cause of action alleged.

  3. Bessenger v. Metropolitan Street R. Co.

    79 App. Div. 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1903)   Cited 5 times
    In Bessenger v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 79 A.D. 33, the car had come to a standstill at a street intersection; plaintiff was getting off and, while so doing, the car started. It was held dismissal was error.

    While the car was thus standing, the plaintiff, who had been riding on the rear platform, stepped down upon the step and had one foot upon the ground, when the car started, throwing the plaintiff to the street, inflicting injuries which the jury has assessed at $1,500. The learned trial court reserved decision upon the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, and subsequent to the coming in of the jury decided the motion and dismissed the complaint, so that the case is left with no verdict of the jury and the motion for a new trial is not here for review. ( Griffiths v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 63 App. Div. 86, 88.) The plaintiff appeals. The learned court dismissed the complaint mainly upon the authority of Armstrong v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. ( 36 App. Div. 525; affd., 165 N.Y. 641), but we are of opinion that the doctrine of that case is not to be extended beyond the facts there involved, and that the evidence in the case now before us demanded that the jury should determine the question of negligence on the part of the defendant.