# Gorham Co. v. United Engineering & Contracting Co.

> New York Court of Appeals · June 13, 1911 · 202 N.Y. 342

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3599749

## Case

- **Full name:** The Gorham Company, Respondent, v. the United Engineering and Contracting Company, Appellant
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 13, 1911
- **Citations:** 202 N.Y. 342; 95 N.E. 805; 1911 N.Y. LEXIS 1023
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gray
- **Judges:** Hiscock, Gray
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3599749

## Opinion text

Gray, J.
I concur with my brother Hiscock in the conclusion which he reaches that there should be a new trial of this action; but it is upon the sole ground that it was error to admit in evidence the proceeding instituted by the superintendent of the building department against the plaintiff and its lessor. The proceeding was personal as against them and the error in making it a part of the plaintiff’s case cannot be said to have been without prejudice to the defendant; inasmuch as the proceeding had determined a fact of serious importance. The evidence was not necessary to make out a case under the contract sued upon. I think that the defendant is entitled to a new trial, in which the case may be submitted to the jury without this prejudicial evidence.
Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Chase and Collin, JJ., concur with Hiscock, J.; Gray, J., concurs in result in memorandum, with whom Willard Bartlett, J., concurs.
Judgment reversed, etc.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3599749. Public record. Not legal advice.