Elias v. Coleman & Krause, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Elias v. Coleman & Krause, Inc.

150 N.Y.S. 92

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 4, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 N.Y.S. 92 (Elias v. Coleman & Krause, Inc.) 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

Elias v. Coleman & Krause, Inc., 150 N.Y.S. 92 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the learned judge below erroneously excluded certain proof offered by the plaintiff. The latter, in order to prove substantial performance of an agreement to deliver to defendant, under the terms of a contract, certain glass (called “lights”) which were placed in sash, offered three réceipts calling, respectively, for certain quantities of lights. These receipts are marked, in the present trial, Plaintiff’s Exhibits C, F, and N, respectively. Plaintiff then offered in evidence extracts from the minutes of the previous trial, which defendant’s counsel conceded to be correct, marked Plaintiff’s Exhibits B and E for iden[93]*93tification, respectively, in the present record. These are claimed by plaintiff to constitute admissions made by the defendant’s counsel on the previous trial, and to be binding as such on his client in the present trial. Respondent contends, on the other hand, that these admissions were conditional or qualified. There is, however, nothing in the admissions to indicate either condition or qualification, and therefore, under defendant’s own authorities, such as Owen v. Cawley, 36 N. Y. 600, and Clason v. Baldwin, 152 N. Y. 204, 46 N. E. 322, the testimony showing these admissions should have been admitted, and the case as thus made submitted to the jury.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the learned judge below erroneously excluded certain proof offered by the plaintiff. The latter, in order to prove substantial performance of an agreement to deliver to defendant, under the terms of a contract, certain glass (called “lights”) which were placed in sash, offered three réceipts calling, respectively, for certain quantities of lights. These receipts are marked, in the present trial, Plaintiff’s Exhibits C, F, and N, respectively. Plaintiff then offered in evidence extracts from the minutes of the previous trial, which defendant’s counsel conceded to be correct, marked Plaintiff’s Exhibits B and E for iden[93]*93tification, respectively, in the present record. These are claimed by plaintiff to constitute admissions made by the defendant’s counsel on the previous trial, and to be binding as such on his client in the present trial. Respondent contends, on the other hand, that these admissions were conditional or qualified. There is, however, nothing in the admissions to indicate either condition or qualification, and therefore, under defendant’s own authorities, such as Owen v. Cawley, 36 N. Y. 600, and Clason v. Baldwin, 152 N. Y. 204, 46 N. E. 322, the testimony showing these admissions should have been admitted, and the case as thus made submitted to the jury.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 N.Y.S. 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elias-v-coleman-krause-inc-nyappterm-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack