Wasserman v. Rubin

New York Supreme Court

Wasserman v. Rubin

67 Misc. 398, 123 N.Y.S. 58

DecidedMay 15, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 67 Misc. 398 (Wasserman v. Rubin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wasserman v. Rubin, 67 Misc. 398, 123 N.Y.S. 58 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Bijur, J.

Plaintiff sues for seventy dollars, money loaned to defendant. Near the close of the trial, in which the evidence can hardly be said to have preponderated for either party, the court (there being no jury) interrogated defendant and brought out that he was the owner of property, had money - deposited in bank, was an employer of - several people, an officer of a corporation, etc.; all evidently intended to show that defendant did not need to borrow money. The court denied the motion of the plaintiff to strike out this evidence as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The denial was error; and, as the court asked the questions, it is fair to assume that the testimony must have influenced the decision.

[399]*399The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Seabury and Guy, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

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

Bijur, J.

Plaintiff sues for seventy dollars, money loaned to defendant. Near the close of the trial, in which the evidence can hardly be said to have preponderated for either party, the court (there being no jury) interrogated defendant and brought out that he was the owner of property, had money - deposited in bank, was an employer of - several people, an officer of a corporation, etc.; all evidently intended to show that defendant did not need to borrow money. The court denied the motion of the plaintiff to strike out this evidence as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The denial was error; and, as the court asked the questions, it is fair to assume that the testimony must have influenced the decision.

[399]*399The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Seabury and Guy, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Misc. 398, 123 N.Y.S. 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasserman-v-rubin-nysupct-1910.