House v. Low
New York Supreme Court
ON the return io the certiorari in this causé, it appeared, that the defendant below pleaded in bar to the plaintiff’s demand, a receipt in full, and the plaintiff below replied, that it was given on a condition, which had never been performed by the defendant below, and issue was joined on that fact.
Read the full summary
ON the return io the certiorari in this causé, it appeared, that the defendant below pleaded in bar to the plaintiff’s demand, a receipt in full, and the plaintiff below replied, that it was given on a condition, which had never been performed by the defendant below, and issue was joined on that fact. Several witnesses were examined, hut the justice, in his return, did not state that they were sworn, but that the facts were’ proved by them. objected, 1. That it did not appear that the witnesses were sworn. 2. That the evidence to invalidate the receipt was inadmissible. He cited Van Dusen v.…
1Per curiam
As both parties were present, and no' objection w-as made to the witnesses, we shall intend that they were sworn. If they were not sworn, it may be, that the parties agreed to admit their testimony without oath.’ The evidence to show that the receipt was conditional, was admissible. The parties joined issue upoii that fact, without raising any objection; and a receipt; may be explained by parol, (a)
Judgment affirmed.
Sse Jenner v. Joliff, 9 John. Rep. 361. Trisler v. Williamson, 4 Har. and M’llen. 219. O'Neale v. Lodge, 3 Har. and M'Hen. 433. Proof of a sale of goods or payment of money may be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown & Hotchkiss v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1812
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. . BriggsNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
- Derby Club, Inc. v. BecketWashington Supreme Court · 1953
- Curtis v. LeavittNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- City of New York v. FredericksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Hill v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1826
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.