Jackson ex dem. Van Slyck v. Son
New York Supreme Court
Lsr ejectment on a motion for a new trial. It appeared that at nisiprms\ the plaintiff claimed by descent. On the cross-examination of one of his witnesses by the defendant, it came out that the ancestor had made a will, of which the judge, vho heard the cause, admitted parol testimony, without any notice to produce it having been given.
1Per curiam
A new trial must be awarded with costs to abide the event. "When the defendant cross-examined, be made tbe witness as much bis own as if be bad bimself called him.(a) He, therefore, could not introduce through Him. any proof, which would not have been legal, had the witness been originally produced on his behalf. In Jackson, ex dem. Van Rensselaer v. Clark, April term, 1801, the same point was ruled. The judge, therefore, was clearly wrong in admitting parol proof of a will, as the party did not show any notice on the opposite side to produce it.
New trial.
PROMOTIONS.
Kent, J. Chief Justice,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Phelps v. Court of Oyer & TerminerNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- People v. MooreNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Home Insurance v. North Little Rock Ice & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Livingston v. Roberts'Supreme Court of Florida · 1881
- Mattice v. AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1860
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.