Gates v. Gridley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gates v. Gridley

229 A.D. 368, 241 N.Y.S. 710, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10387

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

DecidedMay 14, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 229 A.D. 368 (Gates v. Gridley) 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

Gates v. Gridley, 229 A.D. 368, 241 N.Y.S. 710, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

When the plaintiffs offered, the evidence of the witness Hitchcock as to admissions of the defendant George L. Gridley to the effect that the defendants had borrowed money from the testatrix and given their note therefor, they opened the door to proof of further statements made by the defendant Gridley to Hitchcock at the same time that the defendants had been released from their obligation by a gift of the note to the defendant George L. Gridley by the testatrix shortly before her death. The admission of liability sought to be elicited was thus turned into a declaration of non-liability. (Carver v. Tracy, 3 Johns. 427; Smith v. Jones, 15 id. 229; Rouse v. Whited, 25 N. Y. 170; People ex rel. Perkins v. Moss, 187 id. 410; 4 Wigm. Ev. [2d ed.] § 2117.)

While the statement of Gridley taken as a whole is evidence of the gift, its truth still remained a question for the jury. The indebtedness of the defendants was established, not only by the admission of the defendant Gridley to Hitchcock and the admission [369]*369of the defendant Abbie E. Gridley in her talk with Hitchcock, but by the admissions contained in the pleadings of both defendants. The burden of proving the gift was at all.times upon the defendants. George L. Gridley’s statement to Hitchcock, of which different accounts are given by the witnesses Hitchcock and Gridley, does not sustain the burden as matter of law. The defendants under the peculiar circumstances of this trial were not entitled to a nonsuit or a direction of a verdict, but were entitled to present tó the jury the question whether the gift was in fact made.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

When the plaintiffs offered, the evidence of the witness Hitchcock as to admissions of the defendant George L. Gridley to the effect that the defendants had borrowed money from the testatrix and given their note therefor, they opened the door to proof of further statements made by the defendant Gridley to Hitchcock at the same time that the defendants had been released from their obligation by a gift of the note to the defendant George L. Gridley by the testatrix shortly before her death. The admission of liability sought to be elicited was thus turned into a declaration of non-liability. (Carver v. Tracy, 3 Johns. 427; Smith v. Jones, 15 id. 229; Rouse v. Whited, 25 N. Y. 170; People ex rel. Perkins v. Moss, 187 id. 410; 4 Wigm. Ev. [2d ed.] § 2117.)

While the statement of Gridley taken as a whole is evidence of the gift, its truth still remained a question for the jury. The indebtedness of the defendants was established, not only by the admission of the defendant Gridley to Hitchcock and the admission [369]*369of the defendant Abbie E. Gridley in her talk with Hitchcock, but by the admissions contained in the pleadings of both defendants. The burden of proving the gift was at all.times upon the defendants. George L. Gridley’s statement to Hitchcock, of which different accounts are given by the witnesses Hitchcock and Gridley, does not sustain the burden as matter of law. The defendants under the peculiar circumstances of this trial were not entitled to a nonsuit or a direction of a verdict, but were entitled to present tó the jury the question whether the gift was in fact made.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D. 368, 241 N.Y.S. 710, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gates-v-gridley-nyappdiv-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack