Speck v. Berliner

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Speck v. Berliner

85 N.Y.S. 370

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 30, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 85 N.Y.S. 370 (Speck v. Berliner) 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

Speck v. Berliner, 85 N.Y.S. 370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The testimony of the plaintiff’s witness, upon the issue of the agreement with the deceased was placed in dispute by [371]*371the testimony of the widow to the effect that the deceased, at the time of the alleged making of the agreement, was in her company, and not at the place where the agreement was claimed to have been made. If uncontradicted, however, the testimony as to a transaction with a deceased person was not conclusive, but was to be weighed by the jury in connection with the circumstances of the case (Hughes v. Davenport, 1 App. Div. 182, 37 N. Y. Supp. 243; Van Slooten v. Wheeler, 140 N. Y. 624, 35 N. E. 583), and in view of the circumstances presented by the record before us we find no possible reason for disturbing the jury’s conclusion.

Questions allowed on cross-examination, to which our attention has been called, brought out nothing prejudicial to the objecting party, and there is no ground for reversal in the other minor matters referred to by the appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The testimony of the plaintiff’s witness, upon the issue of the agreement with the deceased was placed in dispute by [371]*371the testimony of the widow to the effect that the deceased, at the time of the alleged making of the agreement, was in her company, and not at the place where the agreement was claimed to have been made. If uncontradicted, however, the testimony as to a transaction with a deceased person was not conclusive, but was to be weighed by the jury in connection with the circumstances of the case (Hughes v. Davenport, 1 App. Div. 182, 37 N. Y. Supp. 243; Van Slooten v. Wheeler, 140 N. Y. 624, 35 N. E. 583), and in view of the circumstances presented by the record before us we find no possible reason for disturbing the jury’s conclusion.

Questions allowed on cross-examination, to which our attention has been called, brought out nothing prejudicial to the objecting party, and there is no ground for reversal in the other minor matters referred to by the appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 N.Y.S. 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speck-v-berliner-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack