Azzara v. Waller

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Azzara v. Waller

88 N.Y.S. 1040

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 1040 (Azzara v. Waller) 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

Azzara v. Waller, 88 N.Y.S. 1040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinions

FREEDMAN, P. J.

To sustain the plaintiffs’ cause of action herein, it was essential to show that a judgment had been obtained against these plaintiffs in favor of one Wilkins, which judgment establishes the ownership of a horse in Wilkins, which horse had been sold to the plaintiffs by these defendants under an implied warranty. In offering this record in evidence this is what occurred:

“Plaintiff’s Counsel: Here is the record produced by the attendant of the Second Municipal Court, which I offer in evidence. Defendants’ Counsel: Objected to, on the ground that it is immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent, and not binding on these defendants. The Court: Objection overruled. Record allowed. Exception.”

Under the decision in the case of Levy v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (Sup.) 87 N. Y. Supp. 487, this was error.

Judgment reversed. New trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

MacLEAN, J., concurs.

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

FREEDMAN, P. J.

To sustain the plaintiffs’ cause of action herein, it was essential to show that a judgment had been obtained against these plaintiffs in favor of one Wilkins, which judgment establishes the ownership of a horse in Wilkins, which horse had been sold to the plaintiffs by these defendants under an implied warranty. In offering this record in evidence this is what occurred:

“Plaintiff’s Counsel: Here is the record produced by the attendant of the Second Municipal Court, which I offer in evidence. Defendants’ Counsel: Objected to, on the ground that it is immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent, and not binding on these defendants. The Court: Objection overruled. Record allowed. Exception.”

Under the decision in the case of Levy v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (Sup.) 87 N. Y. Supp. 487, this was error.

Judgment reversed. New trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

MacLEAN, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 1040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/azzara-v-waller-nyappterm-1904.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack