Court Opinion

ID: 6136032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-04 21:42:07.445929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:30.712333
License: Public Domain

Haight, J.,
dissented upon the grounds that it was error to charge as a matter of law that “a man cannot honestly carry on the business of banking upon a mere promise of another to carry him.” [Schufeldt v. Schnitzler, 21 Hun, 462, 465), and that the schedules were improperly admitted as evidence against the plaintiff. (Tyler v. Brock, 68 N. Y., 418; Turner v. See, 57 id., 667; People v. Moore, 37 Hun, 84, 95.)
Judgment and order affirmed.