Finkel v. Davidson

23 Misc. 764, 52 N.Y.S. 1141
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJune 15, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 Misc. 764 (Finkel v. Davidson) 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
Finkel v. Davidson, 23 Misc. 764, 52 N.Y.S. 1141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think the justice below had-no power to modify, the. judgment as he did/ and for that reason it should he reversed. • We also think that the question put to the plaintiff on cross-examination, Didn’t you know as a clbakmaker from an experience of four years when a. man is hired for a certain time a writing is given, and if a writing is not given! he is hired from week to .week? ” should have been allowed, as it had some bearing upon his credibility in view of -the nature of the ¡arrangement with the defendants to which he testified. ",

' Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. j

Present:. Beekman, P, J., Gildersleevé andfGiEGERicH, JJ.

■Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event. • ' !

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

Related

Dauch v. Theed
209 A.D. 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 Misc. 764, 52 N.Y.S. 1141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finkel-v-davidson-nyappterm-1898.