Hubert v. Henderson-Johnson Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hubert v. Henderson-Johnson Co.

235 A.D. 765

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1932·Published

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Per Curiam. The fact that plaintiff was protected by compensation insurance first came into the ease through plaintiff pleading it in his complaint. He also introduced evidence showing that he had such protection, and that he had duly made his election to sue a third party. Even so, we might be inclined to hold that the plaintiff had been prejudiced by the frequent mention of compensation insurance all through the trial and even in the charge (Zimber v. Kress, 225 App. Div. 16), were it not that the great weight of evidence supports the verdict. All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Per Curiam. The fact that plaintiff was protected by compensation insurance first came into the ease through plaintiff pleading it in his complaint. He also introduced evidence showing that he had such protection, and that he had duly made his election to sue a third party. Even so, we might be inclined to hold that the plaintiff had been prejudiced by the frequent mention of compensation insurance all through the trial and even in the charge (Zimber v. Kress, 225 App. Div. 16), were it not that the great weight of evidence supports the verdict. All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Hubert v. Henderson-Johnson Co., 235 A.D. 765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

235 A.D. 765 (Hubert v. Henderson-Johnson Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related