Warren v. Haight
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought upon a promissory note, to recover the amount due thereon. The note was originally given to one William E. Warner, and the plaintiff claimed to be the owner and holder of it. The answer, among other things, put in issue the ownership of the note, alleging that it was owned by one Newton. Hpon this issue the defendants had the affirmative.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought upon a promissory note, to recover the amount due thereon. The note was originally given to one William E. Warner, and the plaintiff claimed to be the owner and holder of it. The answer, among other things, put in issue the ownership of the note, alleging that it was owned by one Newton. Hpon this issue the defendants had the affirmative. The evidence was as follows: The defendants gave in evidence a written assignment of this note by William E. Warner, the payee, to Newton, dated April 5, 1870. They then called Warner, who swore that prior to January, 1870, he had…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
P. Potter, J.
The respondent contends that Warner having sworn falsely upon a question material to the issue, his testimony must be disregarded; and there being no other testimony for the defendants, the court was correct in talcing the case from the jury. I cannot concur in the soundness of this argument, either as to the truth of its premises, or the justness of its conclusions.
The case of Dunlop v. Patterson, (5 Cowen, 243,) is at best ambiguous. It does not clearly appear from the opinion whether the judgment was reversed because the evidence of the perjured witness should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- The People v. . EvansNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pease v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Place v. . MinsterNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Hodge v. City of BuffaloSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1874
- Morgenthau v. WalkerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- In re the Final Accounting of HymanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1888