Brown v. . Mailler
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
If this had been a controversy between the plaintiff and the administrator of Raney, the declarations of the intestate would have been admissible in favor of the plaintiff, on account of the privity subsisting between the deceased and his representative. (1 Greenl. on Ev., § 189.) So if Raney were living and had been joined in the action with the present plaintiff, the declarations of either would have been good evidence against themselves to show that they were partners, and, after the partnership had been established, the declarations of either of the partners would have been admissible…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Lowery v. . ErskineNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Bullis v. . MontgomeryNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Von Sachs v. . KretzNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Scheps v. Bowery Savings BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Moore v. FingarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.