Clerihew v. Standard Railroad Signal Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Clerihew v. Standard Railroad Signal Co.

31 Misc. 760, 64 N.Y.S. 1108

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Misc. 760 (Clerihew v. Standard Railroad Signal 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

Clerihew v. Standard Railroad Signal Co., 31 Misc. 760, 64 N.Y.S. 1108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Guriarn.

The defendant properly excepted to a ruling by which he was prevented from showing that at the time of the making of the alleged agreement a certain statement was made by Mr. Cade, one of the persons through whom the agreement was claimed to have been made, with respect to his reason for not signing a paper presented to him for signature. The statement was relevant as tending to show one of the circumstances surrounding the making of the alleged contract and bore upon the probability of the truth of the plaintiff’s version. It might, if admitted, have had material weight with the jury, and so its exclusion was prejudicial error.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial is ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

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

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

Per Guriarn.

The defendant properly excepted to a ruling by which he was prevented from showing that at the time of the making of the alleged agreement a certain statement was made by Mr. Cade, one of the persons through whom the agreement was claimed to have been made, with respect to his reason for not signing a paper presented to him for signature. The statement was relevant as tending to show one of the circumstances surrounding the making of the alleged contract and bore upon the probability of the truth of the plaintiff’s version. It might, if admitted, have had material weight with the jury, and so its exclusion was prejudicial error.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial is ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 760, 64 N.Y.S. 1108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clerihew-v-standard-railroad-signal-co-nyappterm-1900.