cific performance will be decreed, and the qnestion whether the rem· edy at law is complete, adequate, and plain, and the question as to what control the court could have over the plaintiff to compel it' to observe the agreements on its part, will come up for consideration. The motion for an injunction mnst be denied.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New Y f/rk.
ATTORNEY AT LAW-LIEN OF.
August 9, 1881.)
Where the attorneys for a party withdraw from the case of their own motion, the new attorneys were subBtituted without prejudice to the existing lien of the original attorneys; but the former "ttorneys are not entitled to any lien oD, ultimate recoveries.
BLATCHFORD, C. J. In this and the nine other cases I think the new attorneys must be substituted, without prejudice, of course, to any existing lien of the former attorneys on papers, but without the imposition or creaiion of any lien on any future recoveries in favor of the former attorneys in respect to their first services. Whatever might be done in a case where the client, without any reason but his wish, desired to displace his attorneys, I think that as, in this case, the attorneys withdrew of their own motion, and no special reasons are shown for impressing a lien in their favor on any ultimate recoveries, no such lien should be created as a condition of the substitution.
((Jircuit Court, E. D. New York. December 5,1881.)
DAMAGElJ-PERSONAL INJURIES-NEW TRIAL-INSUI<'FICIENT GROUND.
In an action for damages for personal injuries, caused by negligently leaving open a hatchway on a vessel, where the jury believed a witness whose character was in nowise impeached, and against whose testimony there is nothing exC'ept that he is plaintiff in the action, and his testimony is in conflict with several other witnesses, the verdict of the jury cannot be set aside as being against the evidence.
Where, in such case, the jury was composed of intelligent persons,and,the trial developed no warmth of feeling, and there was nothing in the case from which to conclude that another jury would place the damages at a less sum, and the verdict was not the result of passion, prejUdice, or mistake on the part of ,the jury, a motion for a new trial will be denied.
REISS V. NORTH-GERMAN LLOYD.
On motion for new trial.
P. B. Einstein, for plaintiff. Shipman, Barlow, Larocque &; Choate, for defendant.
BENEDICT, D. J. This is an action at law to recover of the ownera of the steamer Main damages for injuries caused by the plaintifI'e falling in the night-time through a small hatch, in front of the plaintiff's cabin door, carelessly left open. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at $2,000. The defendant now moves for a new trial upon two grounds, namely, that the ver· dict was against the evidence, and that the sum allowed for damages is excessive. At the trial the case turned upon the question whether the plaintiff had been duly notified that the hatch was open, and at· tempted to pass into his cabin knowing that the hatch was open. Upon this question there was a direct conflict of testimony. The plaintiff swore that he had no knowledge whatever of the opening of the hatch. Witnesses called in behalf of the defendant swore that the plaintiff was notified of the opening of the hatch, and in fact looked down through it while it was open. The jury believed the plaintiff, and did not believe the witnesses called for the defendant. I am unable to see in this action of the jury ground upon which 'to hold that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice, or to say that the jury mistook the rules of law on evidence in arriving at this cQnclusion. When, in a case of this character, the result turns solely upon the credibility of the witnesses, and where the jury have believed a wit. ness whose character was in no way impeached, and against whose testimony there is nothing except that' he is the plaintiff in the action, and his testimony in conflict with that of several other witnesses, 1 am of the opinion that the verdict of the jury cannot properly be set aside as against the evidence. The remaining ground upon which the defendant asks a new trial is damages. Thetestimony of the plaintiff showed tha.t he: fell suddenly into this openhai&h, while passing to his state-room in >the night ; that he was partly stunned by the fall, and his knee so injured as to compel him to keep his room until the arrival of the vessel in port; that hew-as 'taken home from the ship, and there confined to his house, ,in care of a surgeon, for three weeks, and that at the time of the trial, more thaIi a year after the accident, the effect of the injury to the knee was stilt felt "in great pain, just like needles," at times preventing sleep. There was no testimony to the contrary of this. The cautibJi to the jury in regard to the amount of damages was explicit and full; The
jury was composed of intelligent persons. The trial developed no warmth or feeling, and there is nothing in the case from which to conclude that another jury, finding for the plaintiff, would place the damages at a less sum. For myself, I might say that I consider the award liberal, but I cannot say that the amount is so excessive as to warrant the conclusion that it is the result of passion, prejudice, or mistake on the part of the jury. The motion for a new trial must therefore be denied.
(Ofreuit Oourt, E. D. N6'IO York. January 11,1882.)
lNronv-VERDICT. Where, in an action for damages for personal injury caused by the alleged negligence of defendant, the instruction t() the jury was as favorable to plaintiff as he was entitled to, and there is nothing to indicate that the jury were· actuated by passion or prejudice, the verdict will not be Bet aside.
On Motion to Set Aside Verdict. This action was brought in a cOurt in the state of New York to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the fall of the plaintiff on a snowy day in December, 1879, upon the steps of the Trinity building in New York city, No. - , Broadway. The defendant is. one of the heirs of. the estate, and the action was removed from the state court to the United States circuit court under the act of 1875. The cause came onto be heard at the November term, 1881, beforeHon. H. K Wheeler, district judge, holding the circuit .court, and jury; and a verdict was rendered for the defendant. Thornton, Earle « Kiendl, for pla.intiff. Strong tt Cadwalader, for defendant. WHEELER, D. J. This cause has been heard upon the motion of the plaintiff, after verdict for the defendant, to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. No complaint is made but that the instrliction to the jury that the defendant was in duty bound to provide reasona· bly safe steps for the accommodation of persons entering to do business with his tenants in the building of which he was an owner and lessor, in accordance with the purposes of the renting, was as favorable to plaintiff as he was entitled to: The evidence as to the actual condi· tion of the steps at the time when the plaintiff slipped upon them and fell, and as to what would constitnte reasonably safe steps for