Heimerdinger v. Finelite

City of New York Municipal Court

Heimerdinger v. Finelite

11 Misc. 111, 31 N.Y.S. 1128, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 874

DecidedJanuary 15, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Misc. 111 (Heimerdinger v. Finelite) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heimerdinger v. Finelite, 11 Misc. 111, 31 N.Y.S. 1128, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 874 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Ehrlich, Ch. J.

The defendant, who was sued as indorser of a promissory note, pleaded that at the time of the indorsement he was of unsound mind and incapable of understanding the nature of his act or yielding a free assent thereto.

The proofs showed that'prior to the indorsement the defendant had met with an accident, but they fell far short of establishing that he was non compos mentis. Indeed, they were so slight that a verdict in favor of the defendant on his plea would have to be set -aside as against the evidence; and in such a case the consensus of authority is that the trial judge may direct the only verdict the proofs admit of, which, in this instance, was that directed in favor of the plaintiff.

There was no error in excluding evidence, and nothing in the case which requires a new trial.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons, J., concurs; Conlan, J., dissents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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