Case ID: thomp-cook_5/html/0681-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Davis, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hallgarten v. Eckert.
    
      Trial—practice at—submission to jury — Exception—what sufficient.
    
    In an action upon a promissory note, the defense was that it was made for the accommodation of the payee upon a certain agreement, and was contrary to that agreement sold to plaintiff at a usurious rate. At the trial a witness testified that he thought the rate was 34 per cent per annum, and that when plaintiff was present he was told the rate, and that he thought it was 34 per cent. The plaintiff asked the court to direct a verdict for plaintiff, which was done, and defendant excepted. Meld, that the direction was error, and defendant’s exception was sufficient to raise the question and preserve defendant’s rights. Catlin v. Gunter, 11 N. Y. 368; Stone v. Flower, 47 id. 566.
    Appeal by defendants from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a verdict directed by the court.
    The action was brought' by Lazarus Haljgarten and others, against William Eckert and others, upon a promissory note. The case upon a previous appeal from an order, is reported, 3 N. Y. Sup. 102.
    
      Jacob A. Gross and Abel Crook, for appellants.
    
      John K. Porter and Lewis Saunders, for respondents.
   Davis, P. J.

• The head-note states the only points passed upon in the opinion. Babbett, J., dissented.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.