Central Bureau of Engraving v. Schmidt-Wilckes Electric Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Central Bureau of Engraving v. Schmidt-Wilckes Electric Co.

107 N.Y.S. 219

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 107 N.Y.S. 219 (Central Bureau of Engraving v. Schmidt-Wilckes Electric Co.) 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

Central Bureau of Engraving v. Schmidt-Wilckes Electric Co., 107 N.Y.S. 219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue- presented by the pleadings and outlined by the evidence was whether the defendant had authorized the [220]*220plaintiff to charge to its account certain purchases made by the Beck Pacific Lamp Company. In order to establish its defense the defendant introduced in evidence over the plaintiff’s objection two letters, written by the Beck Company to the plaintiff, containing statements which tended to negative the plaintiff’s claim. These declarations, made by a total stranger to the action, were in no way binding upon the plaintiff, and the letters should have been excluded. While the effect of these letters upon the result is problematical, it was sufficiently prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case to call for a new trial.

Judgment reversed, and' new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The issue- presented by the pleadings and outlined by the evidence was whether the defendant had authorized the [220]*220plaintiff to charge to its account certain purchases made by the Beck Pacific Lamp Company. In order to establish its defense the defendant introduced in evidence over the plaintiff’s objection two letters, written by the Beck Company to the plaintiff, containing statements which tended to negative the plaintiff’s claim. These declarations, made by a total stranger to the action, were in no way binding upon the plaintiff, and the letters should have been excluded. While the effect of these letters upon the result is problematical, it was sufficiently prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case to call for a new trial.

Judgment reversed, and' new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 N.Y.S. 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-bureau-of-engraving-v-schmidt-wilckes-electric-co-nyappterm-1907.