Lieberman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lieberman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

115 N.Y.S. 1034

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 115 N.Y.S. 1034 (Lieberman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad) 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

Lieberman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 115 N.Y.S. 1034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover a sum of money paid to an alleged agent of the defendant under protest for demurrage charges accrued upon a car of stoneware consigned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the car was shipped with directions to notify the plaintiff at 95 Forsyth street of the arrival of the car. The defendant claimed that it was directed to notify the plaintiff at 45 Forsyth street.

Against the objection and exception of the defendant the court received in evidence a paper purporting to be a copy of the bill of lading. This paper was not shown to be a copy of the bill of lading, nor was any foundation laid for the introduction of secondary evidence. In view of the issue in dispute, the reception of this evidence was prejudicial to the defendant, and requires that the judgment should be 'reversed.

Our attention is called to other errors which were committed upon the trial; but, as the judgment must be reversed for the reason stated above, it is unnecessary to discuss them at this time.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover a sum of money paid to an alleged agent of the defendant under protest for demurrage charges accrued upon a car of stoneware consigned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the car was shipped with directions to notify the plaintiff at 95 Forsyth street of the arrival of the car. The defendant claimed that it was directed to notify the plaintiff at 45 Forsyth street.

Against the objection and exception of the defendant the court received in evidence a paper purporting to be a copy of the bill of lading. This paper was not shown to be a copy of the bill of lading, nor was any foundation laid for the introduction of secondary evidence. In view of the issue in dispute, the reception of this evidence was prejudicial to the defendant, and requires that the judgment should be 'reversed.

Our attention is called to other errors which were committed upon the trial; but, as the judgment must be reversed for the reason stated above, it is unnecessary to discuss them at this time.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 N.Y.S. 1034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieberman-v-baltimore-ohio-railroad-nyappterm-1909.