Frear v. Evertson

New York Supreme Court

Frear v. Evertson

20 Johns. 142

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1822

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 20 Johns. 142 (Frear v. Evertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frear v. Evertson, 20 Johns. 142 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The questions in this case are, 1. Whether the admissions of the plaintiff, after he had assigned his interest to another, could be given in evidence for the defendant, who had notice of the assignment? 2. Whether the plaintiff could be a witness for the defendant, when objected to by the plaintiff’s counsel, after proving the assignment and notice ?

The Judge, at the trial, excluded the evidence, and rejected the witness; and we see no ground to doubt the correctness of his decision. Having assigned his interest in the chose in action, Frear could not impair that interest by any confessions made by him to the prejudice of his assignee. As to his being a witness, that he was a party to the record was enough to exclude him, unless by consent of the real parties in interest. But F. was not merely a nominal plaintiff. According to the terms of the assignment, there was i'ontingent resulting benefit to him. The ease of Bauerman [144]*144v. Radenius, (7 Term Rep. 663.) is clearly distinguishable from the present case. The plaintiff must have judgment. i

Judgment for the plaintiff:

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

Per Curiam.

The questions in this case are, 1. Whether the admissions of the plaintiff, after he had assigned his interest to another, could be given in evidence for the defendant, who had notice of the assignment? 2. Whether the plaintiff could be a witness for the defendant, when objected to by the plaintiff’s counsel, after proving the assignment and notice ?

The Judge, at the trial, excluded the evidence, and rejected the witness; and we see no ground to doubt the correctness of his decision. Having assigned his interest in the chose in action, Frear could not impair that interest by any confessions made by him to the prejudice of his assignee. As to his being a witness, that he was a party to the record was enough to exclude him, unless by consent of the real parties in interest. But F. was not merely a nominal plaintiff. According to the terms of the assignment, there was i'ontingent resulting benefit to him. The ease of Bauerman [144]*144v. Radenius, (7 Term Rep. 663.) is clearly distinguishable from the present case. The plaintiff must have judgment. i

Judgment for the plaintiff:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Johns. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frear-v-evertson-nysupct-1822.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack