Post v. . Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- McQuage v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
- Ryan v. New York Rapid Transit Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1938)
- Decker v. Lehigh & Hudson River Railway Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1926)
- Treuhaft v. Bender (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1920)
- Schoenherr v. Hartfield (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1916)
- Fischer v. W. C. Ritchie & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1916)
- Wallace v. Wallace (New York Surrogate's Court 1915)
- Collier v. Postum Cereal Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1912)
- Engel v. . United Traction Co. (N.Y. 1911)
- Weibert v. Hanan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1910)
- Walter v. Joline (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1910)
- Brown v. Newell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1909)
- Wade v. City of Mount Vernon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1909)
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
There are errors in this record, but we find none calling for reversal, when the circumstances under which the erroneous rulings were made and their probable effect on the result are taken into account. Under our system of appeals every error does not require a new trial, for the vast judicial work of the state could not be done on that basis. Unless the error is so substantial as to raise a presumption of prejudice, it should be disregarded, for undue delay is a denial of justice. We think that the evidence received, subject to objection and exception, could have had no effect on the final result, for it did not change the material aspect of the case, or the standing of any witness, or the attitude of either party, in any respect, nor make the theory of either party more probable than it was before.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ,, concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.