
    CHARLES E. STRONG, Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK LAUNDRY MANUFACTURING COMPANY and others, Appellants.
    
      Bequest by defendant far dwectwn of verdict— effect.
    
    Where a defendant requests the court to direct a verdict in his favor, he thereby assumes that there is no dispute as to the facts, and allows the justice presiding to be substituted in the place of the jury, and is concluded by his findings. He cannot, therefore, upon appeal under a general exception to the subsequent direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, insist that there were questions in the case which should have been submitted to the jury. {Winehell v. Hicks, 18 N. Y., 558; Marine Bank v. Olements, 31 id., 33; O’Neill v. James, 43 id., 85; Stone v. Flow&r, 47 id., 566.)
    . Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon a verdict directed by the court.
    
      Robert Sewell, for the appellants. S. P. Nash and John L. Oadamlader, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.  