Carpenter v. Turk

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Carpenter v. Turk

32 Misc. 720, 65 N.Y.S. 1129

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Misc. 720 (Carpenter v. Turk) 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

Carpenter v. Turk, 32 Misc. 720, 65 N.Y.S. 1129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On December twelfth the plaintiff wrote defendant in substance, Exhibit F, that she believed that the balance due her on her account was fourteen dollars and fifty cents; this was in substance a statement by her memory of the account as it was on the date referred to. Upon the trial plaintiff failed, though interrogated about it, to explain the letter. In February, defendant sent plaintiff twenty-five dollars, and satisfactorily explained why he sent it. In view of the evidence referred to the judgment should have been in favor of the defendant; the plaintiff certainly did not prove her case by a fair preponderance of evidence.

I believe that the judgment should be reversed, with costs.

Present: Truax, P. J., and Dugro, J.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

On December twelfth the plaintiff wrote defendant in substance, Exhibit F, that she believed that the balance due her on her account was fourteen dollars and fifty cents; this was in substance a statement by her memory of the account as it was on the date referred to. Upon the trial plaintiff failed, though interrogated about it, to explain the letter. In February, defendant sent plaintiff twenty-five dollars, and satisfactorily explained why he sent it. In view of the evidence referred to the judgment should have been in favor of the defendant; the plaintiff certainly did not prove her case by a fair preponderance of evidence.

I believe that the judgment should be reversed, with costs.

Present: Truax, P. J., and Dugro, J.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 720, 65 N.Y.S. 1129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-turk-nyappterm-1900.