Armstrong Manufacturing Co. v. Thompson

88 N.Y.S. 151, 55 Hun 198
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided May 5, 1904·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is extremely doubtful if the proposed newly discovered evidence is of that decisive character that, if introduced at the [152] trial, a different result would have ensued. But even if it be conceded that such would have been the effect, the motion was properly denied for the reason that the papers are defective, in that they do not contain an affidavit by the newly discovered witness setting forth his readiness to swear to the facts claimed to be newly discovered. Adams v. Bush, 1 Abb. Dec. 7; Seaman v. Clarke, 75 App. Div. 345, 350, 78 N. Y. Supp. 171. And no reason is assigned for the nonproduction of such an affidavit. Matter of Cohen, 84 Hun, 586, 32 N. Y. Supp. 851. Order affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

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

Armstrong Manufacturing Co. v. Thompson, 88 N.Y.S. 151, 55 Hun 198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

88 N.Y.S. 151 (Armstrong Manufacturing Co. v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Collins v. Central Trust Co.
135 Misc. 465 (New York Supreme Court, 1929)
State v. Clifford
52 S.E. 864 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1906)