Patchin v. . the Astor Mutual Insurance Co.
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- McClellan v. Fort Wayne & Belle Isle Railway Co. (Mich. 1895)
- Kegg v. Truck-Rite Distrib. Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- Kegg v. Truck-Rite Distrib. Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- People v. Dachille (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Oates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1916)
- Brown v. Mostoller (Iowa 1914)
- Larkin v. . Nassau Electric R.R. Co. (N.Y. 1912)
- State v. Matheson (Iowa 1905)
- McEvoy v. Lommel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- Brunnemer v. Cook & Bernheimer Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- Squier v. Hanover Fire Insurance (N.Y. 1900)
- McMahon v. Town of Salem (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- Mason v. Phelps (Mich. 1882)
- Coulter v. . American Merchants' Un. Ex. Co. (N.Y. 1874)
- Coulter v. American Merchants' Union Express Company (N.Y. 1874)
- Dean v. Ætna Life Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1874)
- Knight v. Forward (New York Supreme Court 1863)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
I am not able to concur in the ruling by which one of the questions put to the witness, Heath, was excluded. Stebbins, who was qualified by his avocations and experience and his knowledge of his vessel to give an opinion, had testified in positive language to his belief in her entire seaworthiness. If it be true that when it was found she had taken firej he immediately referred the cause of the calamity to the dangerous condition of the water jackets, and made use of the strong and emphatic language attributed to him and which the defendant offered to prove by Heath, it could not be considered otherwise than a grave impeachment of his testimony. His attention *had been called to the time and occasion and to the -* person in whose presence the declaration was said to have been made, and he declared that he made use of no such expression and had no such idea. The slight discrepancy between the expression about which he was examined and the one offered to be proved, was not material. The substance, so far as was material to the case was identical, and his denial *273 was not based upon any notion of verbal difference, for ho denied entertaining any such idea as the expression suggested. I am satisfied that the judge fell into an error in excluding the evidence. I do not think any of the other rulings were objectionable ; but for the error in overruling the question to the witness, Heath, I am of opinion that the judgment should be reversed and that there should be a new trial.
All the judges except Marvin, J., who was in favor of' affirming the judgment, concurred in the foregoing opinion.
Judgment reversed. 1
Gilbert v. Sage, 4 Lans. 287; s. c. 57 N. Y. 639. Schell v. Plumb, 55 N. Y. 592; s. c. 46 How. Pr. 11. New York Guaranty and Indemnity Co. v. Gleason, 78 N. Y. 503.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.