Luneschloss v. Rothschild

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Luneschloss v. Rothschild

119 N.Y.S. 1133

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 22, 1909·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment was clearly against the weight of the evidence. In the letter of May 7, 1907, to the Metropole Construction Company, it is stated that the work was done on the order of Mr. Livingston, not of the defendant, as the witness Smith testified upon the trial. The attempted explanation by this witness as to why such statement was made, and what part Livingston took in the transaction, is not clear, and does not account for the contradiction. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment was clearly against the weight of the evidence. In the letter of May 7, 1907, to the Metropole Construction Company, it is stated that the work was done on the order of Mr. Livingston, not of the defendant, as the witness Smith testified upon the trial. The attempted explanation by this witness as to why such statement was made, and what part Livingston took in the transaction, is not clear, and does not account for the contradiction. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Luneschloss v. Rothschild, 119 N.Y.S. 1133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

119 N.Y.S. 1133 (Luneschloss v. Rothschild) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.