Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.

90 N.Y.S. 374

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.Y.S. 374 (Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., 90 N.Y.S. 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion, the defendant was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to grant an adjournment on account of the absence of one of defendant’s witnesses. The case was called for trial after 6 o’clock in the afternoon, and it appears that the witness, after being in attendance all day, had left. Counsel was excused from making affidavit to the materiality of the testimony to be given by reason of the court’s distinct ruling that an adjournment would be refused because the trial had commenced upon the answer “Ready” on the part of both [375]*375sides; and in view of the circumstances disclosed, taken with the unusual hour for calling the case for trial, we conclude that this court should grant a new trial in discretion.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion, the defendant was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to grant an adjournment on account of the absence of one of defendant’s witnesses. The case was called for trial after 6 o’clock in the afternoon, and it appears that the witness, after being in attendance all day, had left. Counsel was excused from making affidavit to the materiality of the testimony to be given by reason of the court’s distinct ruling that an adjournment would be refused because the trial had commenced upon the answer “Ready” on the part of both [375]*375sides; and in view of the circumstances disclosed, taken with the unusual hour for calling the case for trial, we conclude that this court should grant a new trial in discretion.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.Y.S. 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwarzschild-sulzberger-co-v-new-york-city-ry-co-nyappterm-1904.