From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chapin-Owen Co., Inc., v. Yeoman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 5, 1931
233 App. Div. 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

Opinion

November 5, 1931.

Appeal from County Court of Monroe County.

Raines Raines, for the appellant.

Wile, Oviatt Gilman, for the respondent.

Present — SEARS, P.J., CROUCH, EDGCOMB, THOMPSON and CROSBY, JJ.


The record does not disclose whether the trial court accepted or rejected defendant's testimony. If it accepted the testimony, then as matter of law the court erred in its decision. If the court rejected it, error was also done for the testimony was not contradicted or impeached in any respect. It was positive and direct, not incredible on its face and was corroborated. It was, therefore, the duty of the court to give credit to it. ( Hull v. Littauer, 162 N.Y. 569; Lomer v. Meeker, 25 id. 361; Powers v. Wilson, 203 App. Div. 232.)

The motion for reargument is denied, with ten dollars costs, and the motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied.


Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.


Summaries of

Chapin-Owen Co., Inc., v. Yeoman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 5, 1931
233 App. Div. 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)
Case details for

Chapin-Owen Co., Inc., v. Yeoman

Case Details

Full title:CHAPIN-OWEN COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. MATHEW EMMETT YEOMAN, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 5, 1931

Citations

233 App. Div. 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)
253 N.Y.S. 568

Citing Cases

Schneider v. Swartele

The testimony of the witnesses is not contradicted by direct evidence, nor by any legitimate inferences from…

Locicero v. Messina

( Hull v. Littauer, 162 N.Y. 569, 572.) To the same effect are Second National Bank v. Weston ( 172 N.Y. 250,…