Gutman v. New York El. Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Gutman v. New York El. Railroad

36 N.Y.S. 647, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 642, 71 N.Y. St. Rep. 720

DecidedDecember 18, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 36 N.Y.S. 647 (Gutman v. New York El. Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gutman v. New York El. Railroad, 36 N.Y.S. 647, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 642, 71 N.Y. St. Rep. 720 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It seems to be conceded by the respondent that evidence, and, upon an examination of the record, a considerable .amount thereof, was admitted in this action for the purpose of proving damage, of a character which was condemned by the court of appeals in the case of Jamieson v. Railway Co. (recently decided) 41 N. E. 693. It is impossible for us to say that such ■evidence did not influence the referee, or that he would have come to the same conclusion had it not been presented before him for consideration. It may be true that the evidence in question was of a character such as has been presented in various of these cases which have been affirmed by the court of appeals. But that court .-seems in the case last decided to have Anally come to the conclusion that it is necessary to enforce the rules of evidence which -commonly obtain, even in an elevated railroad case, in this city; .-and we see no reason for dissenting from this conclusion.

The case at bar, as already stated, is clearly within the rule laid down in the Jamieson Case; and the judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered before another referee, to be appointed by this court, with costs to the appellants to abide the ■event.

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

PER CURIAM.

It seems to be conceded by the respondent that evidence, and, upon an examination of the record, a considerable .amount thereof, was admitted in this action for the purpose of proving damage, of a character which was condemned by the court of appeals in the case of Jamieson v. Railway Co. (recently decided) 41 N. E. 693. It is impossible for us to say that such ■evidence did not influence the referee, or that he would have come to the same conclusion had it not been presented before him for consideration. It may be true that the evidence in question was of a character such as has been presented in various of these cases which have been affirmed by the court of appeals. But that court .-seems in the case last decided to have Anally come to the conclusion that it is necessary to enforce the rules of evidence which -commonly obtain, even in an elevated railroad case, in this city; .-and we see no reason for dissenting from this conclusion.

The case at bar, as already stated, is clearly within the rule laid down in the Jamieson Case; and the judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered before another referee, to be appointed by this court, with costs to the appellants to abide the ■event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.Y.S. 647, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 642, 71 N.Y. St. Rep. 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutman-v-new-york-el-railroad-nysupct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack