Place v. Place

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Place v. Place

122 A.D. 363, 106 N.Y.S. 781, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2440

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 22, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D. 363 (Place v. Place) 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

Place v. Place, 122 A.D. 363, 106 N.Y.S. 781, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The record contains exceptions which we think require a reversal of the judgment. The defendant should have been permitted to show that the plaintiff was working at his own trade, independently of any employment by the defendant’s testator, during the time that he claims to have been employed by said testator. The defendant should also have been permitted to show that after the rendition of the services sued for other: services were performed and a bill rendered for the same which did not include any charge for the services sued for. Ho objection was made, to the testimony offered on this head on the ground that the bill was the best evidence, but' the objection was made on the ground that the testimony was irrelevant and immaterial. An objection that the bill itself was the best .evidence, might have been obviated by the production of the bill.

Jenics, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich g,nd Miller, JJ.; concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam :

The record contains exceptions which we think require a reversal of the judgment. The defendant should have been permitted to show that the plaintiff was working at his own trade, independently of any employment by the defendant’s testator, during the time that he claims to have been employed by said testator. The defendant should also have been permitted to show that after the rendition of the services sued for other: services were performed and a bill rendered for the same which did not include any charge for the services sued for. Ho objection was made, to the testimony offered on this head on the ground that the bill was the best evidence, but' the objection was made on the ground that the testimony was irrelevant and immaterial. An objection that the bill itself was the best .evidence, might have been obviated by the production of the bill.

Jenics, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich g,nd Miller, JJ.; concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D. 363, 106 N.Y.S. 781, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/place-v-place-nyappdiv-1907.