Keet v. Murrin
| Decision Date | 25 October 1932 |
| Citation | 184 N.E. 104,260 N.Y. 586 |
| Parties | Eugene KEET, Respondent, v. Howard MURRIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (235 App. Div. 882, 256 N. Y. S 1021), entered June 1, 1932, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff, one McGlynn, and the defendant were riding in an automobile, owned and operated by the defendant, when it overturned. All three occupants of the car were injured. McGlynn, sworn as a witness by the defendant, was, against the objection of the defendant, asked by plaintiff's attorney upon cross-examination if he had settled with the defendant, and answered that he had. The trial justice denied motions by defendant to strike out the answer as prejudicial and to withdraw a juror, stating that he would leave the question and answer in the record on the question of the credibility of the witness. The sole question upon the appeal to the Court of Appeals was whether or not this ruling was improper and constituted reversible error.
John H. Broderick and Thomas H. Guy, both of Troy, for app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pretto v. Leiwant
...cross-examination that an adversary witness has settled a claim against the party calling him to testify to show bias. (See Keet v. Murrin, 260 N.Y. 586, 184 N.E. 104; Richardson, Evidence (Prince, 10th ed), § Since, under the circumstances of this case, it was indicated that plaintiffs suf......
-
Finn v. Morgan
...676, 193 N.E.2d 508) or to effect credibility (Mannion v. General Baking Co., 266 App.Div. 1028, 44 N.Y.S.2d 890; cf. Keet v. Murrin, 260 N.Y. 586, 184 N.E. 104; Ryan v. Dwyer, 33 A.D.2d 878, 307 N.Y.S.2d 565; see also CPLR 4533--b Supplementary Practice Commentary 1974). CPLR 4533--b provi......
-
Esser v. Brophey
...affecting the credibility of the witness, and that a cautionary instruction to that effect is proper. Subsequent to the decision in Keet v. Murrin, supra, it held in Cochrane v. Fahey, 245 A.D. 41, 280 N.Y.S. 622, that a compromise and settlement was not admissible to establish an admission......
-
Cataldo v. Monroe County
...I do not here pass upon whether they may be used at the trial. (Cochrane v. Fahey, 245 App.Div. 41, 280 N.Y.S. 622; Keet v. Murrin, 260 N.Y. 586, 184 N.E. 104.) In all other respects, the subpoena is vacated and quashed. (Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451; People e......
-
Table of Cases
...AD2d 511, 596 NYS2d 90 (2d Dept 1992), §6:40 Keen v. Keen , 113 AD2d 964, 966, 493 NYS2d 636, 638 (3d Dept 1985), §8:65 Keet v. Murrin , 260 NY 586, 184 NE 104 (1932), §25:53 Keizer v. D’Agostino , 272 AD2d 447, 708 NYS2d 335 (2d Dept 2000), appeal denied 95 NY2d 763, 738 NE2d 364, 715 NYS2......
-
Cross-Examination of Lay Witnesses
...Authority , 177 AD2d 554, 576 NYS2d 154 (2d Dept 1991), appeal denied 80 NY2d 760, 591 NYS2d 138 (1992).] CASE EXAMPLES: • Keet v. Murrin , 260 NY 586, 184 NE 104 (1932) (inquiry about a witness’s settlement in the action permissible). • Pretto v. Leiwant , 80 AD2d 579, 435 NYS2d 778 (2d De......
-
Cross-Examination of Lay Witnesses
...Authority , 177 AD2d 554, 576 NYS2d 154 (2d Dept 1991), appeal denied 80 NY2d 760, 591 NYS2d 138 (1992).] CASE EXAMPLES: Keet v. Murrin , 260 NY 586, 184 NE 104 (1932) (inquiry about a witness’s settlement in the action permissible). Pretto v. Leiwant , 80 AD2d 579, 435 NYS2d 778 (2d De......
-
Cross-Examination of Lay Witnesses
...Authority , 177 AD2d 554, 576 NYS2d 154 (2d Dept 1991), appeal denied 80 NY2d 760, 591 NYS2d 138 (1992).] CASE EXAMPLES: Keet v. Murrin , 260 NY 586, 184 NE 104 (1932) (inquiry about a witness’s settlement in the action permissible). Pretto v. Leiwant , 80 AD2d 579, 435 NYS2d 778 (2d De......