
    Carlson v. Winterson.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term.
    
    November 25, 1892.)
    1. Appeal—Review on Facts.
    Where an appeal is taken from a judgment on a verdict, and the case does not disclose an order denying a motion for a new trial, the court will not review any questions of fact, but will merely look to see if any errors of law were committed.
    2. Same—Ordek Denying New Trial.
    A statement in the case on appeal that there was a motion to set aside the verdict is not equivalent to such an order.
    3. Requests to Charge—Applicability to Facts.
    Requests to charge which are inapplicable to the proofs presented are properly refused, though they may be correct as abstract propositions.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Louisa Carlson against Maria Louisa Winterson. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before Ehrlich, C. J„ and Fitzsimons and Newburger, JJ.
    
      E. F. Bullard, for appellant. H. M. Hitchings, for respondent.
   Ehrlich, C. J.

The case on appeal does not disclose any order denying . the motion for a new trial. The statement in the case of a motion to set aside the verdict is not equivalent to an order. In view of this fact, the court will not review any questions of fact, but merely look to see if any errors of law were committed. Code, § 767; Boos v. Insurance Co., 4 Hun, 133, 64 N. Y. 236, 242; Ehrman v. Rothschild, 23 Hun, 273; Matthews v. Meyberg, 63 N. Y. 656; Coakley v. Mahar, 36 Hun, 159; Hinman v. Stillwell, 34 Hun, 178; Thurber v. Railroad Co., 60 N. Y. 326, 328. We have failed to discover any error in admitting or excluding evidence, or in passing on the requests to charge. Some of the propositions were correct as abstract principles, but inapplicable to the state of the proofs presented. The judgment appealed from must therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.  