From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rice v. Kabak

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1911
72 Misc. 16 (N.Y. App. Term 1911)

Opinion

May, 1911.

Barnett Jablow (Ralph Barnett, of counsel), for appellant.

Barnett E. Kopelman, for respondent.


The pleadings in this case were oral. The complaint was one for money had and received and the answer was a general denial and payment. The plaintiff proved that he deposited with the defendant, between November 9, 1910, and November 29, 1910, various sums aggregating in amount the sum of $395.50, and that he had received on account several sums amounting to the sum of $340.50. The amount claimed in the summons was $55. The justice of the lower court gave a judgment in favor of the defendant, and based his reason therefor, primarily, upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proof. Under the pleadings and the proof the burden of proving payment rested upon the defendant and not the plaintiff. Acharan v. Samuel Brothers, 144 A.D. 182.

The plaintiff was not required to prove a negative and establish the fact that he had not yet been repaid. The issue in dispute was a narrow one; and, as the court decided it upon the ground that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

LEHMAN and GERARD, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Rice v. Kabak

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1911
72 Misc. 16 (N.Y. App. Term 1911)
Case details for

Rice v. Kabak

Case Details

Full title:JACOB A. RICE, Doing Business Under the Name of the PLASTICLOTH ROOFING…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: May 1, 1911

Citations

72 Misc. 16 (N.Y. App. Term 1911)
128 N.Y.S. 1092

Citing Cases

Ives v. Male

Assuming that the action here was one to recover for moneys had and received, I do not think it was necessary…

Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. v. Breedlove

In Dickson v. Wainwright (Ga.) 73 S.E. 515, it is held that, when in a suit on an account the only defense is…