New York Supreme Court, 1891

Blankman v. McQueen

Blankman v. McQueen
New York Supreme Court · Decided March 13, 1891 · Brunt, Daniels
13 N.Y.S. 663; 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 601; 59 Hun 625; 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1624 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

George P. Webster, (Allen McDonald, of counsel,) for appellant. A. £. Diossy, (Daniel Clark Briggs, of counsel,) for respondent.

Blankman v. McQueen

Opinion of the Court

Van Brunt, P. J.

We have examined the record in the case at bar, and see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the judge at the special term. Hone of the objections presented upon the record are well taken, and we do not think it necessary to refer to them in detail, because the counsel for the appellant has not considered the question of sufficient importance to refer in his points to the correct folios in the case affecting the same; but reference is made to some imaginary case which is not before the court. The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Concurring Opinion

Daniels, J.,

(concurring.) It is quite clear that theanswers obtained from the witness Pandjiris on her re-exanunation were free from legal exception; for on her cross-examination she was questioned on the same subject by the counsel for the administrator. And after that examination the claimant’s counsel was entitled to fortify, or explain, or add to her answers given by way of cross-examination. In no other respect do the rules of evidence appear to have been violated, and the mode adopted for the final disposition of the case was regular. It is therefore considered that the order made should be affirmed, with costs.

Brady, J„ concurs.

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