Dickinson v. Harris

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Dickinson v. Harris

95 N.Y.S. 1125

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 24, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 95 N.Y.S. 1125 (Dickinson v. Harris) 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

Dickinson v. Harris, 95 N.Y.S. 1125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Both parties treat this appeal as one arising upon the plaintiff’s notice, dated July 28th, from an order, dated July 19th, setting aside a verdict and vacating a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, while the return dated May 25, 1905, discloses no such order, but a judgment entered April 12th, from which there is a notice, dated May 1st, of appeal by the defendant. Taking the appeal, last mentioned, but prior in date, as the one alone here to be considered, the judgment should be reversed, following Thomas v. Williams (decided by this court at the term in October last) 95 N. Y. Supp. 592, because of error in excluding evidence to show the instructions, if any, given by the defendant as to denying or inciting the denial to the plaintiff of full enjoyment of accomodation at the theater conducted by him for conditions not established by law and applicable alike to all citizens. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

Both parties treat this appeal as one arising upon the plaintiff’s notice, dated July 28th, from an order, dated July 19th, setting aside a verdict and vacating a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, while the return dated May 25, 1905, discloses no such order, but a judgment entered April 12th, from which there is a notice, dated May 1st, of appeal by the defendant. Taking the appeal, last mentioned, but prior in date, as the one alone here to be considered, the judgment should be reversed, following Thomas v. Williams (decided by this court at the term in October last) 95 N. Y. Supp. 592, because of error in excluding evidence to show the instructions, if any, given by the defendant as to denying or inciting the denial to the plaintiff of full enjoyment of accomodation at the theater conducted by him for conditions not established by law and applicable alike to all citizens. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.Y.S. 1125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickinson-v-harris-nyappterm-1905.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack