Glasscock v. Lotus Theatre Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Glasscock v. Lotus Theatre Co.

141 N.Y.S. 478

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 8, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 141 N.Y.S. 478 (Glasscock v. Lotus Theatre 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

Glasscock v. Lotus Theatre Co., 141 N.Y.S. 478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action brought to recover for work, labor, and services. At the trial testimony was admitted, over the objection and exception of defendant, which was not relevant to any of the issues raised by the pleadings. Subsequently, on motion of plaintiff’s counsel, and over the objection and exception of defendant’s counsel, plaintiff was permitted to amend his complaint so as to conform same to the evidence, to the admission of which defendant had so objected and excepted. This was in violation of the well-established - rule that, where a case has been tried upon the issues raised by the pleadings and exceptions taken to the improper admission of evidence under the pleadings, the error cannot be cured by a subsequent motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence so improperly admitted. See Bjorkegren v. Kirk, 53 Misc. Rep. 560, 103 N. Y. Supp. 994.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, 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

GUY, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action brought to recover for work, labor, and services. At the trial testimony was admitted, over the objection and exception of defendant, which was not relevant to any of the issues raised by the pleadings. Subsequently, on motion of plaintiff’s counsel, and over the objection and exception of defendant’s counsel, plaintiff was permitted to amend his complaint so as to conform same to the evidence, to the admission of which defendant had so objected and excepted. This was in violation of the well-established - rule that, where a case has been tried upon the issues raised by the pleadings and exceptions taken to the improper admission of evidence under the pleadings, the error cannot be cured by a subsequent motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence so improperly admitted. See Bjorkegren v. Kirk, 53 Misc. Rep. 560, 103 N. Y. Supp. 994.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 N.Y.S. 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glasscock-v-lotus-theatre-co-nyappterm-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack