Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901

Erlandson v. Groh

Erlandson v. Groh
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 15, 1901
35 Misc. 821; 72 N.Y.S. 1101

Counsel

William R. Hill, for appellant., Douglass & Minton, for respondent.

Erlandson v. Groh

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

There is nothing in this case except a conflict of evidence, and we see no reason to reverse the conclusion arrived at by the justice. The question put to the witness Hunt as to the condition of the machine at some undesignated time was properly excluded, because the issue was not as to its condition after it had been used by defendant, but as to its original capability for doing the work for which defendant ordered it.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.