Strang v. Whitehead
12 Wend. 64
Opinion
By the Court,
The expenses incurred by Whitehead, consequent upon his arrest, were not stated in the declaration; and as it cannot be said that they were the legal and natural consequence of the arrest, the judge erred in receiving the testimony objected to. It is wrong to permit any evidence to be given to a jury but such as may properly influence their verdict. The admission of that objected to in this case was an infringement of this rule. The judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed, and venire de novo.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Strang v. Whitehead, 12 Wend. 64 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).
12 Wend. 64 (Strang v. Whitehead) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Linitzky v. Gorman
146 N.Y.S. 313 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1914)
Worden v. . Davis
88 N.E. 745 (New York Court of Appeals, 1909)
Newman v. Seifter
131 A.D. 151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
Hall v. Memphis & Charleston R.
15 F. 57 (W.D. Tennessee, 1882)
Baldwin v. New York & Harlem Navigation Co.
4 Daly 314 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1872)
Albert v. Bleecker Street
2 Daly 389 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1868)
Ward v. Washington Insurance
19 Bosw. 229 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1860)
Bedell v. Powell
13 Barb. 183 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Myers v. Malcolm
6 Hill & Den. 292 (New York Supreme Court, 1844)