BISCHOFF, J.
Not one of the numerous exceptions taken on the trial presents error. Some were taken to rulings which were wholly discretionary, while others are valueless because the ground of the objection was not stated. Cruikshank v. Gordon, 118 N.Y. 178. Nor was it error to allow the jury on retiring to take with them documents which were in evidence. Howland v. Willetts, 9 N.Y. 170.
Plaintiff sued to recover $475, a balance alleged to be due him for moneys received by defendants to his use. Defendants denied the indebtedness and asserted a counterclaim for services rendered as attorneys and counselors at law at plaintiff's instance and request. The value of those services was conceded for the purposes of the trial to be the amount claimed. None but issues of fact were involved in the trial.
The judgment of affirmance of the General Term of the court below is conclusive upon us as to the weight of the evidence ( Rowe v. Comley, 11 Daly, 318; Smith v. Pryor, 16 id. 169; Arnstein v. Haulenbeck, Id. 382); the submission of the evidence to the jury without objection, conceded its sufficiency for that purpose ( Barrett v. Third Ave. R.R. Co., 45 N.Y. 628) ; and in the absence of an exception to the denial of a motion that a verdict be directed for plaintiff on the cause of action alleged in the complaint, or the counterclaim interposed by answer, or that the counterclaim be dismissed for failure of proof, we are precluded from all inquiry whether there was any evidence to support defendants' recovery. Schwinger v. Raymond, 105 N.Y. 648.
The judgment of the General Term of the court below should be affirmed, with costs.
BOOKSTAVER and PRYOR, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.