Hubert v. Henderson-Johnson Co.

235 A.D. 765

This text of 235 A.D. 765 (Hubert v. Henderson-Johnson Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

Zimber v. Kress
225 A.D. 16 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 A.D. 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubert-v-henderson-johnson-co-nyappdiv-1932.