Newins v. Rose , 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 617 ( 1895 )

CULLEN, J.

I vote to affirm, without opinion. The testimony of Seaman that he did not sell the goods to defendant was erroneously admitted against defendant’s objection and exceptions, and was a mere statement of conclusion. He did not state what the transaction was, nor deny defendant’s statement that nothing was said between them reserving the goods plaintiffs had sold Seaman.