Claim of Botti v. Estate of Horton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Botti v. Estate of Horton

254 A.D. 889, 5 N.Y.S.2d 284

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

DecidedJune 17, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 889 (Claim of Botti v. Estate of Horton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Botti v. Estate of Horton, 254 A.D. 889, 5 N.Y.S.2d 284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from decree of Surrogate’s Court, Orange county, allowing a claim against an estate in the sum of $232.40 for the value of the delivery of a newspaper to decedent from 1918 to 1936. Decree reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for a new hearing. The Statute of Limitations was not rendered inapplicable by reason of the purported proof with respect to part payment on account. While the books of account were properly received in evidence (Mantha Co., Inc., v. DeGraff, 242 App. Div. 666; affd., without opinion, 266 N. Y. 581), such proof was merely evidence, in so far as the controversy here is concerned, of a sum due. The decision in that ease was made upon the ground that the books did not involve a personal transaction between the decedent and [890]*890the person whose testimony was challenged. The books did not and could not constitute evidence of payments on account by decedent with the intention of having them apply in a manner which would exclude the operation of the Statute of Limitations, as for that purpose they would be purely hearsay and self-serving. (Crow v. Gleason, 141 N. Y. 489; Adams v. Olin, 140 id. 150,159, 160.) Testimony of claimant independent of the books was barred by section 347 of the Civil Practice Act. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., concurs in result.

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

Appeal from decree of Surrogate’s Court, Orange county, allowing a claim against an estate in the sum of $232.40 for the value of the delivery of a newspaper to decedent from 1918 to 1936. Decree reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for a new hearing. The Statute of Limitations was not rendered inapplicable by reason of the purported proof with respect to part payment on account. While the books of account were properly received in evidence (Mantha Co., Inc., v. DeGraff, 242 App. Div. 666; affd., without opinion, 266 N. Y. 581), such proof was merely evidence, in so far as the controversy here is concerned, of a sum due. The decision in that ease was made upon the ground that the books did not involve a personal transaction between the decedent and [890]*890the person whose testimony was challenged. The books did not and could not constitute evidence of payments on account by decedent with the intention of having them apply in a manner which would exclude the operation of the Statute of Limitations, as for that purpose they would be purely hearsay and self-serving. (Crow v. Gleason, 141 N. Y. 489; Adams v. Olin, 140 id. 150,159, 160.) Testimony of claimant independent of the books was barred by section 347 of the Civil Practice Act. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 889, 5 N.Y.S.2d 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-botti-v-estate-of-horton-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack