Case Name: Johanna Mahoney, Appellant, v. Emma Mahoney, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12
Citations: 14 Misc. 576
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johanna Mahoney, Appellant, v. Emma Mahoney, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
Johanna Mahoney, Appellant, v. Emma Mahoney, Respondent.
(New York Common Pleas
Additional General Term,
December, 1895.)
An objection to “any conversation in respect to- professional opinion” is not sufficient to raise the question that the evidence would tend to-disclose professional communications between attorney and client.
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the District Court in the city of New York for the seventh judicial district, rendered by the justice thereof, without a jury, in favor of the defendant.
Action upon an alleged agreement of the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum -of fifty dollars per month for and during the life of the latter.
The pleadings were oral, and the defendant pleaded a general denial. '•
' The-opinion states the facts so far as they are material.
Moses Weinman, for appellant.
Philip J. Britt, for respondent.

Opinion:
Giegerich, J.
A careful perusal of the voluminous record convinces me that the trial justice was right in his conclusion upon the facts, viz., that the defendant's promise to pay the plaintiff was voluntary and not founded upon any claim of legal right made by the latter against the former.
The only alleged error urged by the appellant for the reversal of the judgment is that the testimony of Mr. Leopold Wallach disclosed professional communications betwéen him and his client, the plaintiff, and was consequently erroneously admitted. The proper ground of objection was, however, not specified upon the trial. The objection made was to " any conversation in respect to professional opinion," and, in view of the facts and the context, this cannot be understood, and could not have been understood by the justice or adverse counsel, as referring to professional communications between attorney and client, but rather to the general incompetency of opinions as evidence; and hence, under well-estahlished rules, it should he disregarded. Mead v. Shea, 92 N. Y. 122; Baylies Tr. Ev. 202, and cases cited.
As we are satisfied, from a careful consideration of the evidence, that the decision of the justice was in all respects correct, the judgment should he affirmed, with costs.
Daly, Gh. J., concurs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.