Hoxie v. . Allen

Decided March 5, 1868

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1868-03-05

This was an action to recover the value of the Plaintiff’s services in procuring the release, at Washington, of the steamship S. S. Lewis, which had been condemned for a violation of the revenue laws. The employment was not denied in the pleadings, nor the rendering of service. The question was upon the value, simply. The only question made in the Appellant’s points is in relation to the evidence given by E. K. Collins.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1892

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-03-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*224 Hunt, Ch.J.

¶1 The objection to the evidence of Collins seems to have been to its character, and not to his competency to give it. If the objection had been made at the trial, that he had not sufficient knowledge to speak upon the subject,' it might have been obviated.

¶2 The competency of the evidence, in its nature, was a fair subject of general objection, and to that the objection must be deemed to have applied.

¶3 That this is a fair construction of the objection, is evident from the circumstance that the objection, and in the same form, was also made to the testimony of Mr. Briggs, whose capacity to speak upon the subject was quite apparent.

¶4 I think the judgment should be affirmed.

All concur, except Clerke, J.