From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Funson v. Salisbury

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 1897
15 App. Div. 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)

Opinion

March Term, 1897.

T.F. Hamilton, for the appellant.

William S. Ostrander, for the respondent.


I think the exclusion of the evidence offered was error.

The testimony offered was not independent affirmative evidence of a transaction between the defendant and the deceased for the purpose of establishing an affirmative defense, but was for the purpose of contradicting the testimony of the witness Leonard by showing that what he testified to, to wit, seeing a bill of sale signed by the defendant, could not be true.

It does not come within the spirit of section 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was to prevent the survivor of an interview from giving a version of it that could not be contradicted. ( Holcomb v. Campbell, 118 N.Y. 46, 54.)

The defendant had a right to contradict the evidence of the witness Leonard by testifying to facts showing that his story could not be true, even although the ultimate result of such testimony was to negative the occurrence of a personal transaction between himself and the deceased. ( Pinney v. Orth, 88 N.Y. 447; Lewis v. Merritt, 98 id. 206, 210.)

The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.


Summaries of

Funson v. Salisbury

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 1897
15 App. Div. 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)
Case details for

Funson v. Salisbury

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS FUNSON, as Administrator, etc., of FRANK BOYCE McCARTHY, Deceased…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1897

Citations

15 App. Div. 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)
44 N.Y.S. 205