Mahoney v. Mahoney

New York Court of Common Pleas

Mahoney v. Mahoney

35 N.Y.S. 1091, 14 Misc. 576, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 709

DecidedDecember 2, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 35 N.Y.S. 1091 (Mahoney v. Mahoney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mahoney v. Mahoney, 35 N.Y.S. 1091, 14 Misc. 576, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 709 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

GIEGERICH, J.

A careful perusal of the voluminous record convinces me that the trial justice was right in his conclusion upon the facts, viz. that the defendant’s promise to pay the plaintiff was voluntary, and not founded upon any claim of legal right made by the latter against the former. The only alleged error urged by the appellant for the reversal of the judgment is that the testimony of Mr. Leopold Wallach disclosed professional communications between him and his client, the plaintiff, and was consequently erroneously admitted. The proper ground of objection was, however, not specified upon the trial.. The objection made was to “any conversation in respect to professional opinion,” and in view of the facts and the context this cannot be understood, and could not have been understood by the justice or adverse counsel, as referring to professional communications between attorney and client, but rather to the general incompetency of opinions as evidence; and hence, under well-established rules, it should be disregarded. Mead v. Shea, 92 N. Y. 122; Baylies, Trial Prac. p. 202, and cases cited. As we are satisfied, from a careful consideration of the evidence, that the decision of the justice was in all respects correct, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

GIEGERICH, J.

A careful perusal of the voluminous record convinces me that the trial justice was right in his conclusion upon the facts, viz. that the defendant’s promise to pay the plaintiff was voluntary, and not founded upon any claim of legal right made by the latter against the former. The only alleged error urged by the appellant for the reversal of the judgment is that the testimony of Mr. Leopold Wallach disclosed professional communications between him and his client, the plaintiff, and was consequently erroneously admitted. The proper ground of objection was, however, not specified upon the trial.. The objection made was to “any conversation in respect to professional opinion,” and in view of the facts and the context this cannot be understood, and could not have been understood by the justice or adverse counsel, as referring to professional communications between attorney and client, but rather to the general incompetency of opinions as evidence; and hence, under well-established rules, it should be disregarded. Mead v. Shea, 92 N. Y. 122; Baylies, Trial Prac. p. 202, and cases cited. As we are satisfied, from a careful consideration of the evidence, that the decision of the justice was in all respects correct, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 N.Y.S. 1091, 14 Misc. 576, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoney-v-mahoney-nyctcompl-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack