Honigstein v. Hollingsworth

85 N.Y.S. 818
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJanuary 7, 1904
StatusPublished

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

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

Related

Page v. . Krekey
33 N.E. 311 (New York Court of Appeals, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 N.Y.S. 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honigstein-v-hollingsworth-nyappterm-1904.