
    HENRIETTA EHRMAN, Respondent, v. JACOB ROTHSCHILD, Appellant.
    
      Facts, can only be reviewed on appeal from, an order denying a motion for a new tidal — the statement in the case, of a motion to set aside the verdict, is not equivalent to an order.
    
    Appear from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.
    The notice of appeal stated that “ the defendant appeals to the General Term of this court from the order denying the motion for a new trial, and from the judgment entered, &c.” No order denying a motion for a new trial appeared in the appeal book. At the end of the case as settled appeared the following statement: “ The defendant moved to set aside verdict, the same being against the evidence. (Motion denied. Excepted.)”
    The court, at General Term, said: “We have no power to review the facts in this case. There is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Upon an appeal from the judgment only, a verdict in such a case must be held conclusive. {Boos v. World Ins. Go., 4 Hun, 133; affirmed, 64 N. Y., 236; Godfrey v. Moser, 66 Id., 250.) To authorize the court to set aside a verdict of a jury on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence, there must have been an order made and entered denying a motion for a new trial, and an appeal taken from such order. The notice of appeal in this case refers to such an order, but none appears in the case. The statement in the case, of a motion made to set aside the verdict, is not equivalent to an order. (4 Hun, 133; 64 N. Y., 236.)
    
    
      Joseph E. Uewburger, for the appellant.
    
      Lewis H. Dickerson, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Gilbert, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Dykman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  