Rodgers v. Fletcher

New York Supreme Court

Rodgers v. Fletcher

13 Abb. Pr. 299

DecidedDecember 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Abb. Pr. 299 (Rodgers v. Fletcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodgers v. Fletcher, 13 Abb. Pr. 299 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

* — Gould, J.

—The evidence, as to amount of damages, was called out by this question, “ How much damage did you sustain in this operation of the work ?” To this question the defendant interposed a general objection, specifying no ground therefor; and the witness answered, “ the damage for the two acts was $50.” There is no point of view in which this testimony was admissible. It is a mere opinion; and the question calls for a mere opinion in gross. Ho facts were asked for; none were given. (2 Comst., 514.)

The plaintiff claims that the objection was not specific, and therefore not good; citing 3 Hill, 609. But that was a case where an untenable ground was assigned for the objection; and the case decides only that, having assigned a ground the party must be held to that; and if it was an insufficient ground, he should not be at liberty to take up a new one on the argument. But in a later case (5 Hill, 603) precisely such a general objection was held good, in a case where it was manifest that the question must call for an opinion. It would seem a case j ust like the present, and fully sustains a reversal of the judgment in this case.

Judgment of County Court and justice reversed.

Present, Gould, Hogeboom, and Peckham, JJ.

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

By the Court.

* — Gould, J.

—The evidence, as to amount of damages, was called out by this question, “ How much damage did you sustain in this operation of the work ?” To this question the defendant interposed a general objection, specifying no ground therefor; and the witness answered, “ the damage for the two acts was $50.” There is no point of view in which this testimony was admissible. It is a mere opinion; and the question calls for a mere opinion in gross. Ho facts were asked for; none were given. (2 Comst., 514.)

The plaintiff claims that the objection was not specific, and therefore not good; citing 3 Hill, 609. But that was a case where an untenable ground was assigned for the objection; and the case decides only that, having assigned a ground the party must be held to that; and if it was an insufficient ground, he should not be at liberty to take up a new one on the argument. But in a later case (5 Hill, 603) precisely such a general objection was held good, in a case where it was manifest that the question must call for an opinion. It would seem a case j ust like the present, and fully sustains a reversal of the judgment in this case.

Judgment of County Court and justice reversed.

Present, Gould, Hogeboom, and Peckham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Abb. Pr. 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodgers-v-fletcher-nysupct-1860.