From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mischner v. Thalheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1918
184 App. Div. 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)

Opinion

May, 1918.


The plaintiff sues upon a contract for services. There is a sharp conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the terms of the contract. The plaintiff made claim for upwards of $14,000. The defendant denies any liability whatsoever. Prior to the commencement of this action there was an attempt made by the parties to arbitrate their claims. The plaintiff was allowed to show, under the objection and exception of the defendant, that, in negotiating for that arbitration, the defendant offered to settle his claim for $3,500 or $4,000, which was rejected by the plaintiff. That this testimony was incompetent would hardly seem to require authority. (See Tenant v. Dudley, 144 N.Y. 504, 507; Franklin v. Hoadley, 115 App. Div. 538.) The judgment rendered was for about $5,000. It cannot be said that this offer of compromise did not influence the jury in reaching the conclusion represented by its verdict, and for this material error the judgment and order must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Clarke, P.J., Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ., concurred. Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Mischner v. Thalheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1918
184 App. Div. 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)
Case details for

Mischner v. Thalheim

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS MISCHNER, Respondent, v . CARL THALHEIM, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 1, 1918

Citations

184 App. Div. 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)

Citing Cases

Wemyss Furniture Co. v. Strober

We thin the admission in evidence of this agreement was error, for which the judgment and order appealed from…

Indemnity Company of America v. Pugh

Plaintiff should not, over defendant's objection, have been permitted to show an offer of settlement on the…