Flagler v. Newcombe

New York Court of Common Pleas

Flagler v. Newcombe

13 N.Y.S. 299, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 739, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1077

DecidedFebruary 2, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 13 N.Y.S. 299 (Flagler v. Newcombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flagler v. Newcombe, 13 N.Y.S. 299, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 739, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1077 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon a careful examination of the ease, we are satisfied that the findings of fact and the conclusions of law by the learned trial judge are well warranted, and that no error was committed on the trial to the prejudice of appellant. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the inference that the money paid for the assignment of the judgment was advanced by defendant for the benefit of Earle; that the property levied on was enough to satisfy the judgment; that the withdrawal of the levy was by authority of defendant; and that Elagler was an accommodation indorser for Earle of the note on which the judgment was obtained. The relation between defendant and Earle, and the evident concert between them for enforcement of the judgment, make the declarations of Earle, in prosecution of their purpose, competent evidence against defendant. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon a careful examination of the ease, we are satisfied that the findings of fact and the conclusions of law by the learned trial judge are well warranted, and that no error was committed on the trial to the prejudice of appellant. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the inference that the money paid for the assignment of the judgment was advanced by defendant for the benefit of Earle; that the property levied on was enough to satisfy the judgment; that the withdrawal of the levy was by authority of defendant; and that Elagler was an accommodation indorser for Earle of the note on which the judgment was obtained. The relation between defendant and Earle, and the evident concert between them for enforcement of the judgment, make the declarations of Earle, in prosecution of their purpose, competent evidence against defendant. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.Y.S. 299, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 739, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagler-v-newcombe-nyctcompl-1891.