Almy v. Hammer

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Almy v. Hammer

121 N.Y.S. 339, 2 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R., (N.S.) 64

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 24, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 121 N.Y.S. 339 (Almy v. Hammer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Almy v. Hammer, 121 N.Y.S. 339, 2 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R., (N.S.) 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Evidence was introduced over plaintiff’s exception to the effect that plaintiff was being financed by another firm, who were entitled to the amount due, if any, from defendants. A motion to strike out the testimony was denied, and exception taken. The [340]*340jury was not charged to disregard it, and it is very likely that it influenced its verdict. Defendants contracted with plaintiff, and did not plead that he was not the real party in interest. The evidence was erroneously admitted. Code Civ. Proc. § 449; Smith v. Hall, 67 N. Y. 48. It is therefore proper to order a new trial.

The evidence upon the other issue may vary upon the new trial, and it is therefore not necessary to consider it now.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Evidence was introduced over plaintiff’s exception to the effect that plaintiff was being financed by another firm, who were entitled to the amount due, if any, from defendants. A motion to strike out the testimony was denied, and exception taken. The [340]*340jury was not charged to disregard it, and it is very likely that it influenced its verdict. Defendants contracted with plaintiff, and did not plead that he was not the real party in interest. The evidence was erroneously admitted. Code Civ. Proc. § 449; Smith v. Hall, 67 N. Y. 48. It is therefore proper to order a new trial.

The evidence upon the other issue may vary upon the new trial, and it is therefore not necessary to consider it now.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 N.Y.S. 339, 2 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R., (N.S.) 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almy-v-hammer-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack