Snowden v. Town of Somerset

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Snowden v. Town of Somerset

84 N.Y.S. 1146

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 1146 (Snowden v. Town of Somerset) 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

Snowden v. Town of Somerset, 84 N.Y.S. 1146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein". Held, that it was incompetent to allow the plaintiff’s witness, Sprague, to testify to declarations made to him by the plaintiff, long after the accident, in regard to the manner in which she attempted to get out of the wagon and received her injuries; also held, that it was error for the trial justice to charge the jury in effect that it was a matter of very little importance for them to determine just what plaintiff’s injury was, or what the precise nature of the latter was.

McLennan, P. J., and SPRING, J., dissent upon the ground that the errors were not of sufficient importance to require the granting of a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein". Held, that it was incompetent to allow the plaintiff’s witness, Sprague, to testify to declarations made to him by the plaintiff, long after the accident, in regard to the manner in which she attempted to get out of the wagon and received her injuries; also held, that it was error for the trial justice to charge the jury in effect that it was a matter of very little importance for them to determine just what plaintiff’s injury was, or what the precise nature of the latter was.

McLennan, P. J., and SPRING, J., dissent upon the ground that the errors were not of sufficient importance to require the granting of a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 1146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snowden-v-town-of-somerset-nyappdiv-1903.