Rosenstock v. Heggarty

New York City Court

Rosenstock v. Heggarty

36 N.Y. St. Rep. 92

DecidedJanuary 26, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 92 (Rosenstock v. Heggarty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosenstock v. Heggarty, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 92 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The books of account were properly admitted evidence under the rule laid down in The National Ulster Co. Bank v. Madden, 114 N. Y., 280, 284; 23 N. Y. State Rep., 220„ and cases there cited. We have examined the other exceptions taken during the trial and find no error. Ho exceptions were filed to the referee’s report under §§ 993 and 994 of the Code, and we are therefore only called upon to review the exceptions taken at the trial. Dainese v. Allen, 36 Superior Court, 98.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Clement, Ch. J., Van Wyck and Osborne, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The books of account were properly admitted evidence under the rule laid down in The National Ulster Co. Bank v. Madden, 114 N. Y., 280, 284; 23 N. Y. State Rep., 220„ and cases there cited. We have examined the other exceptions taken during the trial and find no error. Ho exceptions were filed to the referee’s report under §§ 993 and 994 of the Code, and we are therefore only called upon to review the exceptions taken at the trial. Dainese v. Allen, 36 Superior Court, 98.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Clement, Ch. J., Van Wyck and Osborne, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.Y. St. Rep. 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenstock-v-heggarty-nycityct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack