Honigstein v. Hollingsworth

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Honigstein v. Hollingsworth

85 N.Y.S. 818

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided January 7, 1904·Published

Opinion

FREEDMAN,’ P. J.

The case was one for the jury, and it was properly submitted. But there was error in the refusal of the court to permit the defendants to offer corroborative testimony upon a material issue, viz., the issue relating to plaintiff’s alleged discharge and insubordination. This ruling limiting defendants’ evidence upon the main issue, which was duly objected and excepted to, constituted reversible error, within the rule as laid down in Reynolds v. Port Jervis Factory, 32 Hun, 64, and Page v. Krekey, 137 N. Y. 307, 33 N. E. 311, 21 L. R. A. 409, 33 Am. St. Rep. 731.

The judgment and order must be reversed, and a 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

FREEDMAN,’ P. J.

The case was one for the jury, and it was properly submitted. But there was error in the refusal of the court to permit the defendants to offer corroborative testimony upon a material issue, viz., the issue relating to plaintiff’s alleged discharge and insubordination. This ruling limiting defendants’ evidence upon the main issue, which was duly objected and excepted to, constituted reversible error, within the rule as laid down in Reynolds v. Port Jervis Factory, 32 Hun, 64, and Page v. Krekey, 137 N. Y. 307, 33 N. E. 311, 21 L. R. A. 409, 33 Am. St. Rep. 731.

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

Honigstein v. Hollingsworth, 85 N.Y.S. 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

85 N.Y.S. 818 (Honigstein v. Hollingsworth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related