Case Name: ANDERSON v. ROWLAND
Court: Brooklyn City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-11-25
Citations: 35 N.Y.S. 1048
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANDERSON v. ROWLAND.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 35
Pages: 1048–1049

Head Matter:
(14 Misc. Rep. 401.)
ANDERSON v. ROWLAND.
(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.
November 25, 1895.)
Appeal—Objections to Evidence—Question not Answered.
An exception to a question asked a witness is not available where the question was not answered.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Mary A. Anderson against Elizabeth A. Rowland. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before VAN WYCK and OSBORNE, JJ.
Wm. A. Abbott, for appellant.
John F. Foley, for respondent.

Opinion:
VAN WYCK, J.
It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff, at the special instance and request of defendant, assigned to defendant, for her benefit, a bond and mortgage for $2,000, the defendant promising and agreeing to pay plaintiff that sum for the same. This issue was submitted to the jury, who rendered a verdict for plaintiff. This is an appeal from the judgment and an order denying motion for new trial.
We have carefully considered all the testimony in this case, and do not think the plaintiff should have been nonsuited, or that the verdict should have been set aside as against the weight of evidence. There is testimony, which the jury credited, that shows that the plaintiff assigned the bond and mortgage to the defendant, at "her request, for the consideration of $3,000, and we see no reason for disturbing the verdict. The question at folio 18, to which an exception was taken, was not answered, and that disposes of it. The motion, at folio 17, to strike out the statement of the witness that defendant said to her that she intended to pay plaintiff her mortgage of $2,000, was properly denied, as was also the motion to strike out the statement of the witness that defendant said to her that she wanted her lawyer to settle with plaintiff, and supposed he would pay the money. These were admissions made by defendant tending to sustain plaintiff's contention of a promise to pay her for this bond and mortgage. We find nothing in the other exceptions requiring special consideration. Judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.