Russell v. Rhinehart

4 Citing cases

  1. Blyth v. Quinby Co.

    148 App. Div. 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1912)   Cited 6 times

    In that case the question arose just as it has arisen in this, except that the record showed that neither party objected to the reservation of the motion, and this tacit consent rendered it unnecessary to pass upon the effect of section 1187, and the order dismissing the complaint was affirmed, with the modification that the words "on the merits" were stricken out. 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. A motion was made at the close of the case for a nonsuit upon which decision was reserved.

  2. Taylor v. Glens Falls Automobile Co.

    161 App. Div. 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 1914)

    " ( Azzara v. Nassau Electric R.R. Co., 134 App. Div. 167.) This doctrine was reiterated in the following cases: Russell v. Rhinehart ( 137 App. Div. 843, 848); Burns v. N.Y. Long Island Traction Co. (139 id. 145, 148), and Nowakowski v. N.Y. N.S. Traction Co. (158 id. 949). "We have but recently expressed our opinion as to the condition of the proof which should justify interference on our part with the discretion of the trial court.

  3. Slater v. United Traction Co.

    98 Misc. 69 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1916)   Cited 1 times

    There is at least uncertainty unless the reservation of decision was made by consent of the parties. In Russell v. Rhinehart, 137 A.D. 843, it was held that: "The practice of reserving decision upon a motion for a nonsuit, and then taking a general verdict from the jury, is not only unauthorized by the Code, but is in some respects unfair;" also that "where the decision of a motion for nonsuit is reserved the province of the jury is limited to rendering a special verdict or assessing damages. It has no power to render a general verdict.

  4. Specht v. Waterbury Co.

    70 Misc. 404 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1911)   Cited 5 times
    In Specht v. Waterbury Co., 70 Misc. Rep. 404, 127 N.Y.S 137 (1911), was a case involving a six year old girl who was injured trying to get a wire which was stuck in a bonfire.

    He urges that the Code provision cited is that "After the jury shall have rendered a special verdict upon such submission or shall have assessed the damage, the court may then pass upon the motion to nonsuit, or direct such general verdict as either party may be entitled to;" and he insists that, as the jury has not rendered a special verdict in this case, the motions fail with the disagreement. In Russell v. Rhinehart, 137 A.D. 843, the Appellate Division in this department disapproves the practice of reserving decision on a motion for nonsuit and granting such motion after a general verdict for the plaintiff, for the reason that, should the appellate court decide that the nonsuit is improper, the defendant is denied the right to have the trial judge pass upon a motion for a new trial under section 999 of the Code. In such case, notwithstanding the denial of the nonsuit, the defendant has the right to raise the question that the verdict is against the evidence and, under the practice disapproved, he is denied a ruling upon this question.