Case Name: HEKTOGRAPH MFG. CO., Appellant, v. KNUBEL, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-06
Citations: 72 N.Y.S. 1107
Docket Number: 
Parties: HEKTOGRAPH MFG. CO., Appellant, v. KNUBEL, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 72
Pages: 1107–1107

Head Matter:
HEKTOGRAPH MFG. CO., Appellant, v. KNUBEL, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June, 1901.)
Action by the Hektograph Manufacturing Company against Herman Knubel.
Samuel H. Randall (John Delahunty, of counsel), for appellant. Paskusz & Cohen (Martin Paskusz & William S. Gordon, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The action was brought on two promissory notes. The answer pleaded the statute of limitations and that the notes were given for the accommodation of plaintiff without consideration. Upon the trial the defendant gave evidence tending to show payment of the notes. Such evidence was inadmissible under the issues raised by the pleadings, but the record contains no objection and exception raising the question of- inadmissibility. Both parties seem to have been agreed by tacit consent to try that issue. There were also portions of the charge which were outside of the issues, but no exception was taken, and no appropriate request to charge made. The few exceptions which were taken by the appellant raise no question requiring the reversal of the judgment. Judgment (68 N. Y. Supp. 1139) affirmed, with costs.