Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 A.D. 590

Snelling v. Yetter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1898-02-15

Appeal by. the plaintiff, Abbie E. Snelling, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 31st day of July, ' 1897, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court after a trial at the New York Trial Term, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 30th day of July, 1897, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1898-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1972

2 state decisions

20189819001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Van Brunt, P. J. (dissenting):

¶1Upon an examination of the record in this case there does not appear to he any question presented to this court for review. No exceptions were taken during the course of the trial by the appellant. It is true that'the appellant asked to go to the jury, but no exception whatever was taken to the refusal of the court to permit him so to do. Neither was any exception taken by him to the action of the court in dismissing the complaint.

¶2It is true that a motion for a new trial was formally made, which was subsequently argued upon the grounds then stated, none of which referred to any exception as taken, or assumed that any had been taken, and which was denied. As a motion for a new trial, in a case where a direction has been given dismissing the complaint, can only be founded upon exceptions (Code Civ. Proc. § 999), no question whatever was presented to the court by such motion.

¶3By the prevailing opinion an exception has been imported into the case which nowhere appears upon the record. The question to the plaintiff’s counsel: Do you make a motion for a new trial ? ” Yes,” in no way indicated, upon the part of the court, that an exception had been taken by the counsel to the ruling which had been made, and upon which only the. motion for a new trial could be founded. As has. been stated, when the counsel came to make his motion for. a new trial he.no where founded it upon any exception which, he claimed, had been taken to the rulings of the court. The order entered upon the motion for a new trial was silent as to its haviug been made upon exceptions, and the court refused to resettle that order because, evidently, the order truly expressed in that regard what had taken place before the court.

¶4I think it is too late, after a case has been presented to the Appellate Division, for this court to amend the record by inserting exceptions which it does not appear were ever taken or thought of upon the trial.

¶5Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.

/25/ad/590 · .json · Public domain