
    HEXTER v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    February 10, 1899.)
    Appeal—Review.
    Where the ground on which the trial court set aside the verdict is untenable, and respondent in the appellate court presents no other questions, nor contends that the order setting aside the verdict is sustainable on any other ground, the order will be reversed.
    Appeal from trial term, New York county.
    Action by Solomon Hexter against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff, and ordering a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RTJMSEY, McLaughlin, and ingraham, jj.
    S. H. Randall, for appellant.
    H. G. Ward, for respondent.
   McLAUGHLIN, J.

We think the ground upon which the learned trial justice set aside the verdict is untenable. If, however, the verdict was properly set aside, the order should be affirmed. The questions whether the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and whether the exceptions generally in the case were well taken, were not argued before us, and consequently we do not feel called upon to discuss them. It was held in Layman v. John Anderson & Co., 4 App. Div. 124, 38 N. Y. Supp. 883; Id., 13 App. Div. 625, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1127; Id., 22 App. Div. 152, 47 N. Y. Supp. 955 (and see order in same case filed in the clerk’s office of this appellate division, January 15, 1897),—that all such questions are foreclosed by our decision on an appeal such as the present, and cannot be raised hereafter upon an appeal from the judgment. As, however, the learned counsel for the respondent has presented none of these questions, and has not contended that the order was right because of any other error or upon any other ground than that upon which the learned judge acted, the order should be reversed, with costs. All concur.  