New York City Court, 1891

Rosenstock v. Heggarty

Rosenstock v. Heggarty
New York City Court · Decided January 26, 1891
36 N.Y. St. Rep. 92

Counsel

Martin Flanagan (Horace Graves, of counsel), for resp’ts; Geo. F. Alexander, for app’lt.

Rosenstock v. Heggarty

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The books of account were properly admitted evidence under the rule laid down in The National Ulster Co. Bank v. Madden, 114 N. Y., 280, 284; 23 N. Y. State Rep., 220„ and cases there cited. We have examined the other exceptions taken during the trial and find no error. Ho exceptions were filed to the referee’s report under §§ 993 and 994 of the Code, and we are therefore only called upon to review the exceptions taken at the trial. Dainese v. Allen, 36 Superior Court, 98.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Clement, Ch. J., Van Wyck and Osborne, JJ., concur.

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