Brown v. . Klock
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made April 30, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. It was error to allow plaintiff to testify to the amount of Mrs. Petrie’s estate above -her debts, without stating the amount of the debts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made April 30, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. It was error to allow plaintiff to testify to the amount of Mrs. Petrie’s estate above -her debts, without stating the amount of the debts. (Worrall v. Parmalie, 1 N. Y. 519, 521; Wilson v. Wilson, 4 Keyes, 423.) Exhibit A was not an account stated. (1 Burrill’s Law Dict. 22; 4 Cowen,…
1Opinion of the CourtEarl, J.
This action was brought to recover of the defendant the sum of $1,429.10, with interest, for money alleged to have been received by him for or from the plaintiffs testatrix in her lifetime, and which at her death was due' from him to. her. The defendant by his answer put in issue the alleged indebtedness, and the action was referred to a referee, who found in favor of the plaintiff. The evidence to establish the-defendant’s liability appears in the record to have been very uncertain and unsatisfactory, and we are not convinced that the referee reached the right conclusion upon the merits..…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Havens v. GilmourAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903