Legal Opinion

Chapin-Owen Co. v. Yeoman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 5, 1931PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

The record does not disclose whether the trial court accepted or rejected defendant’s testimony. If it accepted the testimony, then as matter of law the court erred in its decision. If the court rejected it, error was also done for the testimony was not contradicted or impeached in any respect. It was positive and direct, not incredible on its face and was corroborated. It was, therefore, the duty of the court to give credit to it. (Hull v. Littauer, 162 N. Y. 569; Lomer v. Meeker, 25 id. 361; Powers v. Wilson, 203 App. Div. 232.)

The motion for reargument is denied, with ten dollars costs,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hull v. . LittauerNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
  2. Powers v. WilsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Locicero v. MessinaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  2. People v. S. W. Straus & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Heissenbuttel v. Comnas, New York County Courts1958
  4. Schneider v. SwarteleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  5. In re the Estate of CarneyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API