Irvine v. Cook
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. This was an action brought by the defendant in error to recover from the plaintiff in error a balance due to him on the sale of a mare. The defence set up was payment made by the note of one Crawford ; to repel which, the ■plaintiff below offered to prove the insolvency of Crawford, by what one Reuben Smith had said.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. This was an action brought by the defendant in error to recover from the plaintiff in error a balance due to him on the sale of a mare. The defence set up was payment made by the note of one Crawford ; to repel which, the ■plaintiff below offered to prove the insolvency of Crawford, by what one Reuben Smith had said. This testimony was objected to by the defendant below, and the objection was overruled, hut the testimony was not admitted to the jury aá evidence. A verdict was found for the plaintiff below.
1Per curiam
The only objection to this return relates to the testimony offered of what Reuben Smith had said as to ■ the insolvency of Crawford. The hearsay evidence of what Smith had said was certainly inadmissible. It was objected to, and the justice says"that he overruled the objection; by this he must mean that he received the evidence; but he says that the testimony was not admitted to the jury as evidence. If the return is to be understood, as we think it must, that, the justice admitted the evidence to be given to himself, but that he did not allow the jury to consider it as "evidence, it was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hamblett v. HamblettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Hodge v. Town of BenningtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871
- Allen v. Town of HancockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844