Morton v. Smith Hoisting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morton v. Smith Hoisting Co.

161 A.D. 939, 145 N.Y.S. 1134

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 15, 1914·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. As the witness Winkky was the only witness who testified positively to contact between the timber and the tierods, causing one of the latter to fall, if he gave other testimony on a previous trial to which his attention was at this time called, and he denied recollection that he so testified, counsel should have been permitted to introduce such testimony in evidence. (Weeks v. Fox, 3 T. & C. 354; Palmeri v. Manhattan El. R. Co., 39 N. Y. St. Repr. 23; Kelly v. Cohoes Knitting Co., 8 App. Div. 156.) This the court refused to permit him to do. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.

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

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. As the witness Winkky was the only witness who testified positively to contact between the timber and the tierods, causing one of the latter to fall, if he gave other testimony on a previous trial to which his attention was at this time called, and he denied recollection that he so testified, counsel should have been permitted to introduce such testimony in evidence. (Weeks v. Fox, 3 T. & C. 354; Palmeri v. Manhattan El. R. Co., 39 N. Y. St. Repr. 23; Kelly v. Cohoes Knitting Co., 8 App. Div. 156.) This the court refused to permit him to do. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.

Morton v. Smith Hoisting Co., 161 A.D. 939, 145 N.Y.S. 1134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

161 A.D. 939 (Morton v. Smith Hoisting Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related