Mitchell v. Salant

¶1Judg*950ment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the sole ground of the erroneous proceeding by plaintiff’s trial counsel in asking a prospective juror a question based upon the stated contingency “if it should transpire that an insurance company was interested in the case.” Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Mills, JJ., concurred.