
    MILLER v. BLOOD.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    February 6, 1914.)
    Negligence (§ 136*)—Dismissal ob Nonsuit. Where, in a negligence case, there was no evidence that defendant was negligent, his motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of the trial should have been granted.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 277-353; Dec. Dig. § 136.*]
    Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
    Action by David Miller against Samuel S. Blood. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J„ and McEAUGHEIN, RAUGHLIN, CEARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
    Edward J. Redington, of New York City, for appellant.
    M. Spencer Bevins, of New York City, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

There is no evidence to sustain the finding of the jury that the defendant was negligent, and for that reason the motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case and at the close of the evidence should have been granted.

The judgment and order appealed from, therefore, are reversed, with costs of the appeal, and the complaint dismissed.  