Clifford v. Mitchell Motor Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Clifford v. Mitchell Motor Co.

157 N.Y.S. 8

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 157 N.Y.S. 8 (Clifford v. Mitchell Motor 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

Clifford v. Mitchell Motor Co., 157 N.Y.S. 8 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the affidavit of defendant’s attorney recites that during the summing up, and in the absence of the trial judge, plaintiff’s attorney referred to defendant and its agents as robbers, and said they had stolen the money paid by the defendant for the automobile and took advantage of her because she was a woman, etc.; that defendant appellant’s counsel rose from his chair to protest, but realized, and so said to his associate, that there was no one to whom to protest. 'It is true he did not ask the judge, when he returned to the bench, to cure this trouble by instructing tire jury appropriately; but we do. not think that that precludes him from raising the objection now, as we have explained in Carroll v. Blum, 157 N. Y. Supp. 7, decided at this term.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case the affidavit of defendant’s attorney recites that during the summing up, and in the absence of the trial judge, plaintiff’s attorney referred to defendant and its agents as robbers, and said they had stolen the money paid by the defendant for the automobile and took advantage of her because she was a woman, etc.; that defendant appellant’s counsel rose from his chair to protest, but realized, and so said to his associate, that there was no one to whom to protest. 'It is true he did not ask the judge, when he returned to the bench, to cure this trouble by instructing tire jury appropriately; but we do. not think that that precludes him from raising the objection now, as we have explained in Carroll v. Blum, 157 N. Y. Supp. 7, decided at this term.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.Y.S. 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-v-mitchell-motor-co-nyappterm-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack