Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Edward Matthews, Respondent, v. Benedict Meyberg et al., Appellants, 1876 — 63 N.Y. 656 · caselaw · US
General
Edward Matthews, Respondent, v. Benedict Meyberg et al., Appellants
63 N.Y. 656·New York Court of Appeals·1876·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Edward Matthews, Respondent, v. Benedict Meyberg et al., Appellants.
(Argued December 31, 1875;
decided January 18,1876.)
A denial of a motion for a new trial, made upon the judge’s minutes, is not the subject of an exception, and such an exception presents no question of fact for review upon appeal from the judgment.
The office of an exception is to point out errors committed by the court during the progress of the trial.
To bring up the case for review upon the facts there must be an appeál from the order denying the motion for a new trial.
This action was tried below by a jury. After verdict defendant made a motion for a new trial on the judge’s minutes on the merits, which was denied, and defendant excepted. The order was not appealed from, but defendant appealed from the judgment entered on the verdict. Held, as above; and that upon the appeal the General Term could only review errors at law presented by exceptions taken upon the trial. The other questions presented were disposed of upon the facts.
Levis Sanders for the appellant.
William Q. Judge for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Earl, J.,]
Earl, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.