Feldman v. Senft

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Feldman v. Senft

92 N.Y.S. 231

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 23, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 92 N.Y.S. 231 (Feldman v. Senft) 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

Feldman v. Senft, 92 N.Y.S. 231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff bases his appeal mainly upon some strictures upon the conduct of counsel which were embraced in the charge. There is nothing to show that these' criticisms were not deserved, and they certainly were impartial, since they were applied to both counsel. They could not, therefore, have affected the verdict. It is not necessary" to consider the exception to the exclusion of the question put to the doctor as to what, if anything, would produce the injury which he testified to having found on the boy’s foot. No question was made but that whatever injuries the boy had resulted from the accident. We find no other error calling for consideration. We are of opinion, however, that the order granting an extra allowance cannot be sustained, for the case was neither difficult nor extraordinary. Standard Trust Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 407, 70 N. E. 925.

The judgment will therefore be reduced by the sum of $100, and as so modified will be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff bases his appeal mainly upon some strictures upon the conduct of counsel which were embraced in the charge. There is nothing to show that these' criticisms were not deserved, and they certainly were impartial, since they were applied to both counsel. They could not, therefore, have affected the verdict. It is not necessary" to consider the exception to the exclusion of the question put to the doctor as to what, if anything, would produce the injury which he testified to having found on the boy’s foot. No question was made but that whatever injuries the boy had resulted from the accident. We find no other error calling for consideration. We are of opinion, however, that the order granting an extra allowance cannot be sustained, for the case was neither difficult nor extraordinary. Standard Trust Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 178 N. Y. 407, 70 N. E. 925.

The judgment will therefore be reduced by the sum of $100, and as so modified will be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.Y.S. 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feldman-v-senft-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack