Westervelt v. Burns

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Westervelt v. Burns

27 Misc. 781, 57 N.Y.S. 749

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 Misc. 781 (Westervelt v. Burns) 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

Westervelt v. Burns, 27 Misc. 781, 57 N.Y.S. 749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Leventritt, J.

This was an action on an assigned claim. The defense was payment. From the evidence the conclusion of the justice was fully warranted. There is but a single question of law presented for review, and it arises from a denial, of the plaintiff’s motion to strike out certain testimony. It having been introduced without objection, the disposition of the motion was within the sound discretion of the court. Miller v. Montgomery, 78 N. Y. 282; Murray v. Fox, 39 Hun, 108; affirmed, 104 N. Y. 382. A party against whom a witness is called and examined cannot, as [782]*782' was done in the case at bar, lie by and speculate on the chances, first.learning what the witness testified, and then, when he, finds the testimony unsatisfactory, object either to the competency of the witness, or to the form or substance of his testimony. Quin v. Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349. But even, if the plaintiff had preserved his right by a seasonable objection, the- motion to strike out could'.'not prevail, as it was general in form and directed against testimony, part of which was entirely competent. Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 35, N. Y. 204 McCabe v. Brayton, 38 id. 196.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Fbeedmak, P. J., and MacLeait, J., concur.

Judgment-affirmed, wit-b costs to respondent,

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

Leventritt, J.

This was an action on an assigned claim. The defense was payment. From the evidence the conclusion of the justice was fully warranted. There is but a single question of law presented for review, and it arises from a denial, of the plaintiff’s motion to strike out certain testimony. It having been introduced without objection, the disposition of the motion was within the sound discretion of the court. Miller v. Montgomery, 78 N. Y. 282; Murray v. Fox, 39 Hun, 108; affirmed, 104 N. Y. 382. A party against whom a witness is called and examined cannot, as [782]*782' was done in the case at bar, lie by and speculate on the chances, first.learning what the witness testified, and then, when he, finds the testimony unsatisfactory, object either to the competency of the witness, or to the form or substance of his testimony. Quin v. Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349. But even, if the plaintiff had preserved his right by a seasonable objection, the- motion to strike out could'.'not prevail, as it was general in form and directed against testimony, part of which was entirely competent. Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 35, N. Y. 204 McCabe v. Brayton, 38 id. 196.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Fbeedmak, P. J., and MacLeait, J., concur.

Judgment-affirmed, wit-b costs to respondent,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Misc. 781, 57 N.Y.S. 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westervelt-v-burns-nyappterm-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack