
    KANEVSKY v. KLEIN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    April 10, 1908.)
    Trial—Direction of Verdict—Conflicting Evidence.
    Where, at the close of the case, defendant asked to go to the jury on questions of fact, and the only question at issue was whether L., who signed defendant’s name to the note sued on, was authorized to do so, on which the evidence was conflicting, it was error to direct a verdict for plaintiff.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 46, Trial, §§ 342, 343.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
    Action by Jacob Kanevsky against Joseph Klein. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and SEABURY and DAYTON, JJ.
    Max Silverstein, for appellant.
    Boudin & Liebman, for respondent.
   GILDERSLEEVE, P. J.

This action was brought upon a promissory note made payable to plaintiff’s assignor, one Pollock, and indorsed by him, and signed, “J. Klein, H. Eevinthan, Manager.” The answer was a general denial, and the case was tried before a jury.

At the close of the case the trial justice directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to such direction, and asked to go to the jury upon the questions of fact. The only question at issue was whether or not Eevinthan, who signed defendant’s name to the note, was authorized to do so; and upon this question there was a conflict of evidence, and a direction of a verdict was therefore error.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.  