From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bonsall v. Shiverick

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 4, 1920
129 N.E. 898 (N.Y. 1920)

Opinion

Argued April 20, 1920

Decided May 4, 1920

Abraham Benedict, Adam K. Stricker and Lee Parsons Davis for appellant.

John F. Brennan and Frank A. Gaynor for respondent.


We think that the trial court was not adequately informed of the purpose which, it is now suggested, might have been served by the admission of the excluded testimony; that upon the theory of the trial, so far as disclosed when the testimony was offered, the ruling was not error; and that if any error was committed, the record, read in its entirety, compels the conclusion that it should be disregarded as unsubstantial (Code Civ. Pro. sec. 1317).

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the judgment of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court.

HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Bonsall v. Shiverick

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 4, 1920
129 N.E. 898 (N.Y. 1920)
Case details for

Bonsall v. Shiverick

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET M. BONSALL, Appellant, v . BEATRICE C. SHIVERICK, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 4, 1920

Citations

129 N.E. 898 (N.Y. 1920)
129 N.E. 898

Citing Cases

People v. Cammarata

In my opinion, the testimony with regard to a particular telephone conversation offered by defendant and…