From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pollock v. Pennsylvania Iron Works Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 22, 1898
157 N.Y. 699 (N.Y. 1898)

Opinion

Argued October 17, 1898

Decided November 22, 1898

William H. Maginnis and John Cummins for appellant.

Charles De Hart Brower for respondent.


The legal effect of the omission of the defendant at the close of the testimony to move either for a dismissal of the complaint or the direction of a verdict in its favor was to consent to the submission of the case to the jury. We are, therefore, prevented from considering whether the defendant was entitled to judgment. None of the exceptions to the charge call for a reversal.

The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Pollock v. Pennsylvania Iron Works Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 22, 1898
157 N.Y. 699 (N.Y. 1898)
Case details for

Pollock v. Pennsylvania Iron Works Company

Case Details

Full title:ALEXANDER POLLOCK, Respondent, v . PENNSYLVANIA IRON WORKS COMPANY…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 22, 1898

Citations

157 N.Y. 699 (N.Y. 1898)

Citing Cases

Wangner v. Grimm

Moreover, the defendant having subsequently proceeded with the case and put in evidence on his part, he…

Hopkins v. Clark

The rule in such cases has long been settled that the defendant by failing to move concedes there was a…