From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HAAS v. KING, ARCHER

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1926
216 App. Div. 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Opinion

April, 1926.


Order of the City Court of Mount Vernon setting aside verdict and granting new trial reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Defendants, by not asserting their right to sum up, and by not requesting the court to charge the jury, waived their right thereto. There is nothing in the papers which indicates that the defendants did not have a fair trial, or that the verdict of the jury was in any wise affected by reason of the omission of defendants' counsel to sum up and the court to charge the jury. Kelly, P.J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Lazansky, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

HAAS v. KING, ARCHER

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1926
216 App. Div. 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)
Case details for

HAAS v. KING, ARCHER

Case Details

Full title:SOPHIA L. HAAS, Appellant, v. JOHN KING and C.H. ARCHER, Copartners, etc.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1926

Citations

216 App. Div. 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Citing Cases

Saratoga Spa & Bath, Inc. v. Beeche Systems Corp.

We also find no merit to Campbell's contention that Supreme Court erred in prohibiting it from presenting a…

Haefeli v. Woodrich Engineering Co.

( Great Western Railway Co. v. Fawcett, 8 Law Times Rep. 31.) Doubtless an appellate division, for lack of a…