Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904

Honigstein v. Hollingsworth

Honigstein v. Hollingsworth
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 7, 1904 · Freedman
85 N.Y.S. 818 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Blandy, Mooney & Shipman, for appellants., Jacob Rieger, for respondent.

Honigstein v. Hollingsworth

Opinion of the Court

FREEDMAN,’ P. J.

The case was one for the jury, and it was properly submitted. But there was error in the refusal of the court to permit the defendants to offer corroborative testimony upon a material issue, viz., the issue relating to plaintiff’s alleged discharge and insubordination. This ruling limiting defendants’ evidence upon the main issue, which was duly objected and excepted to, constituted reversible error, within the rule as laid down in Reynolds v. Port Jervis Factory, 32 Hun, 64, and Page v. Krekey, 137 N. Y. 307, 33 N. E. 311, 21 L. R. A. 409, 33 Am. St. Rep. 731.

The judgment and order must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

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