Toombs v. Texas Oil Co.

The courts have repeatedly censured the putting of questions which suggest to the minds of the jurors that the defendant was insured in a casualty company, and have reversed judgments and granted new trials on that ground alone. (O’Brien v. Hencken & Willenbrock Co., 172 App. Div. 142, 143, and cases there cited.) (See, also, Dietz v. Dinkel, 230 id. 699, 700.) In most of these cases the decisions were based upon a finding very similar to that in Rodzborski v. American Sugar Refining Co. (2l0 N. Y. 262, 268), *763where it was held that no other assumption could be made than that plaintiff’s…