Friedland & Levine Bros. v. General Fish Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedland & Levine Bros. v. General Fish Co.

147 N.Y.S. 881

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 14, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 147 N.Y.S. 881 (Friedland & Levine Bros. v. General Fish 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

Friedland & Levine Bros. v. General Fish Co., 147 N.Y.S. 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

Defendant appeals from an order setting aside a verdict in its favor and granting a new trial on the ground of fraud and newly discovered evidence.

[1-3] No fraud is shown, and the alleged newly discovered evidence relates merely to collateral matters brought out on cross-examination of a- witness for plaintiff, and not involving the matters at issue.- There is also an entire failure to show that the evidence in question could not have been produced at the trial by the exercise of due diligence. The order also fails to state, as required by rule 31 of the General Rules of Practice, the grounds on which the order was granted.

For these reasons the order must be reversed, with costs, and the judgment reinstated. All concur.

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

GUY, J.

Defendant appeals from an order setting aside a verdict in its favor and granting a new trial on the ground of fraud and newly discovered evidence.

[1-3] No fraud is shown, and the alleged newly discovered evidence relates merely to collateral matters brought out on cross-examination of a- witness for plaintiff, and not involving the matters at issue.- There is also an entire failure to show that the evidence in question could not have been produced at the trial by the exercise of due diligence. The order also fails to state, as required by rule 31 of the General Rules of Practice, the grounds on which the order was granted.

For these reasons the order must be reversed, with costs, and the judgment reinstated. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 N.Y.S. 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedland-levine-bros-v-general-fish-co-nyappterm-1914.