Hyperlawhypertext legal database Whitlatch v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. 58 N.Y.S. 789

← Cases

Whitlatch v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

58 N.Y.S. 789 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1899-06-13 English

Delivered by GOODRICH, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 789
WHITLATCH v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 13, 1899.)

Headnote

Review—Judgment—Evidence not Affecting Verdict.
A judgment will not be reversed for the admission of evidence which could not have affected the verdict.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Josephina Whitlatch against the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. _ From a judgment for plaintiff on a verdict in her favor for $150, and from an order denying a new trial, she appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Thomas Darlington, for appellant.
Percy S. Dudley (Charles C. Nadal, on the brief), for respondent.

There have been five jury trials and four appeals to the general term or appellate division, and one appeal to the court of appeals, in this action. Its history is fully stated in the opinion of this court in 21 App. Div. 124 , 47 N. Y. Supp. 331 . The present appeal presents no features which have not been the subject of review and decision by an appellate court, and it is unnecessary even to summarize these decisions. The earnest argument of the appellant’s counsel has induced a new and careful examination of the record and his brief to see whether there were valid exceptions, or whether there was any new suggestion that should induce a change of our former opinion. We can ffnd nothing of the kind.

One exception to the admission of testimony offered by the defendant, and admitted over the exception of the plaintiff, requires

p. 790
consideration. Certain letters, written by the deceased, were found in his pocket after his death. The question was asked:
“Q. Do you remember their contents? (Objected to, as calling for the contents of letters not produced or accounted for.) The Court: You don’t have to account for letters, in the jurisdiction of California, found in a dead man’s pocket. (Overruled. Exception.) A. Well, one part went on to say that he was a mining man, and another part had reference to his wife and some moneys he had intended to send her, or that he wrote for, or something that way. I know what became of those letters. I delivered them to the coroner.”

Without passing upon the correctness of the ruling, it is sufficient to say that we do not think the answer could in any way have affected the verdict. The admission of the answer did not constitute reversible error, and the judgment and order should be affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cases cited