Hammel v. Kahn

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hammel v. Kahn

127 N.Y.S. 1025

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 127 N.Y.S. 1025 (Hammel v. Kahn) 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

Hammel v. Kahn, 127 N.Y.S. 1025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

This is an action for goods sold and delivered. It was originally brought by Solomon W. Hammel, but upon his death was revived in favor of the present plaintiff. The answer, besides a general denial, sets up defenses based on the alleged illegality of the transaction, arising out of bribery of the defendants’ employés, and two counterclaims.

Upon the trial, the learned court below repeatedly excluded the testimony, regarding transactions with the deceased, offered by witnesses who were employés of the defendants, but not “interested in the event,” within the meaning of section 829 of the Code. This alone is sufficient ground to require the reversal of the judgment below. Talbot v. Laubheim, 188 N. Y. 421, 81 N. E. 163.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

This is an action for goods sold and delivered. It was originally brought by Solomon W. Hammel, but upon his death was revived in favor of the present plaintiff. The answer, besides a general denial, sets up defenses based on the alleged illegality of the transaction, arising out of bribery of the defendants’ employés, and two counterclaims.

Upon the trial, the learned court below repeatedly excluded the testimony, regarding transactions with the deceased, offered by witnesses who were employés of the defendants, but not “interested in the event,” within the meaning of section 829 of the Code. This alone is sufficient ground to require the reversal of the judgment below. Talbot v. Laubheim, 188 N. Y. 421, 81 N. E. 163.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 N.Y.S. 1025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammel-v-kahn-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack