Wildhack v. Cheltenham Advertising Agency, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Wildhack v. Cheltenham Advertising Agency, Inc.

160 N.Y.S. 1078

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 25, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 160 N.Y.S. 1078 (Wildhack v. Cheltenham Advertising Agency, Inc.) 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

Wildhack v. Cheltenham Advertising Agency, Inc., 160 N.Y.S. 1078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for services rendered to defendant as an artist and illustrator. The only issue in the case was the value of plaintiff’s services.

Over appropriate objection and exception by defendant’s counsel, plaintiff was permitted to testify to the amounts received by him for making illustrations for other parties and other publications. Indeed, as this evidence was offered substantially at the opening of the entire case, and covered a number of items, it is evident that it was intended by plaintiff’s counsel as important proof in support of plaintiff’s contention. It is elementary that such evidence is immaterial and obnoxious, also, because it raises collateral issues, namely, as to the facts and circumstances of the other employments. Jamieson v. Kings Co. E. R. Co., 147 N. Y. 322, 41 N. E. 693; Ettlinger v. Weil, 184 N. Y. 179, 77 N. E. 31, and the many cases in which the Jamieson Case is approved and elaborated.

As it is apparent that this testimony was intended to and did have an important influence with the jury, the judgment must be reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for services rendered to defendant as an artist and illustrator. The only issue in the case was the value of plaintiff’s services.

Over appropriate objection and exception by defendant’s counsel, plaintiff was permitted to testify to the amounts received by him for making illustrations for other parties and other publications. Indeed, as this evidence was offered substantially at the opening of the entire case, and covered a number of items, it is evident that it was intended by plaintiff’s counsel as important proof in support of plaintiff’s contention. It is elementary that such evidence is immaterial and obnoxious, also, because it raises collateral issues, namely, as to the facts and circumstances of the other employments. Jamieson v. Kings Co. E. R. Co., 147 N. Y. 322, 41 N. E. 693; Ettlinger v. Weil, 184 N. Y. 179, 77 N. E. 31, and the many cases in which the Jamieson Case is approved and elaborated.

As it is apparent that this testimony was intended to and did have an important influence with the jury, the judgment must be reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 N.Y.S. 1078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wildhack-v-cheltenham-advertising-agency-inc-nyappterm-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack