General
David Scanlon, Respondent, v. Bing S. Stevens, Individually and as Executor, etc., of Elbert E. Stevens, Deceased, and Others, Appellants
211 A.D. 833·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1924·NY
Clark, Davis, Crouch and Taylor, JJ., concur; Hubbs, P. J., dissents and votes for reversal on the ground that the charge referred to constitutes reversible error.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
David Scanlon, Respondent, v. Bing S. Stevens, Individually and as Executor, etc., of Elbert E. Stevens, Deceased, and Others, Appellants.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the error in the court’s instruction in response to the inquiry of the jury as to what would constitute prescriptive rights, may be disregarded, as not affecting any substantial right of the defendant. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 106.) It did not bear on any issue submitted under the evidence.
Clark, Davis, Crouch and Taylor, JJ., concur; Hubbs, P. J., dissents and votes for reversal on the ground that the charge referred to constitutes reversible error.