Rosenstook v. Hoggarty

New York City Court

Rosenstook v. Hoggarty

13 N.Y.S. 228

DecidedJanuary 26, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 13 N.Y.S. 228 (Rosenstook v. Hoggarty) 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

Rosenstook v. Hoggarty, 13 N.Y.S. 228 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The books of account were properly admitted in evidence under the rule laid down in Bank v. Madden, 114 N. Y. 280, 284, 21 N. E. Rep. 408, and cases there. cited. We have, examined the other exceptions taken during the trial, and find no error. No exceptions were filed to the referee’s report uncler sections 993 arid 994 of the Code, and we are therefore only called upon t'a review the exceptions taken at the trial. Dainese v. Allen, 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 98. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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 in evidence under the rule laid down in Bank v. Madden, 114 N. Y. 280, 284, 21 N. E. Rep. 408, and cases there. cited. We have, examined the other exceptions taken during the trial, and find no error. No exceptions were filed to the referee’s report uncler sections 993 arid 994 of the Code, and we are therefore only called upon t'a review the exceptions taken at the trial. Dainese v. Allen, 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 98. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.Y.S. 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenstook-v-hoggarty-nycityct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack