Superintendent of the Poor v. Superintendent of the Poor
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at General Term, in the fifth district, denying a motion for a new trial, ■ upon exceptions heard at the General Term in the first instance, and ordering judgment in favor of the defendants, on a verdict rendered at the circuit in Herkimer county.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at General Term, in the fifth district, denying a motion for a new trial, ■ upon exceptions heard at the General Term in the first instance, and ordering judgment in favor of the defendants, on a verdict rendered at the circuit in Herkimer county. The action is to recover for the maintenance of a pauper, alleged to have been improperly removed' from Herkimer county, with the intent that he should become chargeable in Oortland, or some other county. At the trial, the plaintiff proved the declarations of one Stimpson, who was superintendent of the poor…
1Opinion of the Court
Leonard, C.
The rules of evidence preclude the admission of conversations and declarations made by an agent, except when they are part of the transaction which gives rise to the controversy. They are then of the res gestee and admissible.
The admissions of Stimpson, who was an agent, having certain legal and specific duties, made after the transaction, were not admissible as evidence; and the judge at the trial, on motion, properly struck out evidence of this character, which had been previously admitted.
The statute under which this action was brought, involves the intent of Stimpson in making…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Berkey v. JuddSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Fiedler v. . DarrinNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- State v. . KingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Clapper v. . Town of WaterfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Hathaway v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.