Asinof v. Kuropotkin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Asinof v. Kuropotkin

144 N.Y.S. 758

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 11, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 144 N.Y.S. 758 (Asinof v. Kuropotkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Asinof v. Kuropotkin, 144 N.Y.S. 758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHMAN, J.

[ 1 ] The plaintiffs agreed to pay the defendants certain sums for making up different grades of garments. They paid the defendants the sum of $701.02 for the work done, and thereafter they claim that they found that by mistake they overpaid the defendants in the sum of $149.89. At the trial one of the plaintiffs was permitted, over defendants’ objection and exception, to read into the record, under the pretense of refreshing his memory, the legder entries showing th amount of garments delivered to defendants and made up by them. It was not shown, that the witness had any personal knowledge of the number of garments delivered, and he could not refresh his recollection unless he had such personal knowledge.

[2] The reading of the entries as book entries was certainly incompetent, for no foundation was laid for the introduction of the book.

Judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.- All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LEHMAN, J.

[ 1 ] The plaintiffs agreed to pay the defendants certain sums for making up different grades of garments. They paid the defendants the sum of $701.02 for the work done, and thereafter they claim that they found that by mistake they overpaid the defendants in the sum of $149.89. At the trial one of the plaintiffs was permitted, over defendants’ objection and exception, to read into the record, under the pretense of refreshing his memory, the legder entries showing th amount of garments delivered to defendants and made up by them. It was not shown, that the witness had any personal knowledge of the number of garments delivered, and he could not refresh his recollection unless he had such personal knowledge.

[2] The reading of the entries as book entries was certainly incompetent, for no foundation was laid for the introduction of the book.

Judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.- All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 N.Y.S. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asinof-v-kuropotkin-nyappterm-1913.