Hermann v. Van Buren

31 N.Y.S. 825, 10 Misc. 753, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 631
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided January 7, 1895·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A certain paper was admitted in evidence against the objection and exception of the defendant (appellant), but is not included in the justice’s return. A motion by the appellant for leave to amend the return by supplying this paper has been denied because not made until after this court had intimated, upon the argument, its-decision upon the questions presented by the return as filed. Warren v. Campbell (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 14 N. Y. Supp. 165. The exception is-therefore ineffectual, as, in the absence of the paper, it cannot be determined that it was improperly admitted. The appellant has consequently failed to show error of law, and only a question of fact remains to be passed upon; and, after a review of the evidence, we are confirmed in our opinion, formed and intimated upon the argument, that the facts would not warrant a reversal of the justice’s decision. Judgment affirmed, with costs,.

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

Hermann v. Van Buren, 31 N.Y.S. 825, 10 Misc. 753, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 631 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

31 N.Y.S. 825 (Hermann v. Van Buren) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Warren v. Campbell
14 N.Y.S. 165 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1891)