Wicks v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 08 December 1891 |
| Citation | 29 N.E. 301,129 N.Y. 634 |
| Parties | WICKS et al. v. THOMPSON. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department. Action by Alonzo A. Wicks and others against Albert D. Thompson for trespass on real estate. Judgment for defendant, from which, and an order denying a new trial, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
William G. Nicoll, for appellants.
Wilmot M. Smith, for respondent.
The plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages for trespass upon their real estate. The jury rendered a verdict against them. They made a motion on the minutes of the trial judge for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment upon the verdict was entered against them. Then they appealed to the general term from the order denying the new trial, and from the judgment, and the order and judgment were affirmed, and then they appealed to this court. There is nothing for review here. The record does not contain a single exception taken by the plaintiffs. All the evidence offered by them was received, and no evidence of the defendant was received to which they objected. The charge of the judge was entirely satisfactory to the plaintiffs, and no part thereof was excepted to by them. We have many times said we can review here only questions of law raised by exceptions taken during the progress of the trial. In such a case as this, where the record contains no exceptions, the denial of the motion for a new trial is not subject to review here. Duryea v. Vosburgh, 121 N. Y. 57, 24 N. E. Rep. 308. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wangner v. Grimm
...of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 191. We can review only such legal questions as are raised on the trial by a proper exception. Wicks v. Thompson, 129 N. Y. 634, 29 N. E. 301. No objection not so taken can be considered by us. Serviss v. McDonnell, 107 N. Y. 260, 265,14 N. E. 314;Sullivan v. Dunha......
-
Mciver v. Katsiolis
...court, unless they are pointed out by an objection and saved by an exception, no matter how serious those errors may be. Wicks v. Thompson, 129 N.Y. 634, 29 N.E. 301. "It is necessary for a party who wishes to preserve a point for the consideration of this court to give the trial court a ch......
-
Keller v. Erie R. Co.
...or decide the question, because it is not before us. Hecla Powder Co. v. Sigua Iron Co., 157 N. Y. 437, 52 N. E. 650;Wicks v. Thomson, 129 N. Y. 634, 29 N. E. 301. I vote to affirm and for judgment absolute, but solely on the ground that the plaintiff's intestate was guilty of contributory ......
-
Constantin Ref. Co. v. Thwing Instrument Co.
...trial court, unless they were pointed out by an objection and saved by an exception, no matter how serious those errors may be. Wicks v. Thompson, 129 N.Y. 634 . It is necessary for a party who wishes to preserve a point for the consideration of this court to give the trial court a chance t......