Gifford v. Sackett

New York Supreme Court

Gifford v. Sackett

22 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 79

DecidedSeptember 15, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 22 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 79 (Gifford v. Sackett) 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

Gifford v. Sackett, 22 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 79 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Learned, P. J.:

It seems to be settled in this court, that under section 399 of the Code (in force at the time of the trial), the testimony of Mrs. Gifford was inadmissible. She was entitled to a certain legacy' { under the will of the deceased. Hence she was interested in the event of this action, and could not testify as to personal transactions with the deceased against his executor. It is true that her interest was adverse to that of the person calling her as a witness. But it has been decided that this section makes no exception on that account. (LeClare v. Stewart, 8 Hun, 127; Howell v.

Taylor, 11 Hun, 214; Cornell v. Cornell, 12 Hun, 312.)

The judgment must he reversed, reference discharged, and a new trial granted; costs to abide the final order of the court.

Present — Learned, P. J.; Boardman and Westbrook, JJ.

Judgment reversed; new trial granted; reference discharged; costs to abide event.

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

Learned, P. J.:

It seems to be settled in this court, that under section 399 of the Code (in force at the time of the trial), the testimony of Mrs. Gifford was inadmissible. She was entitled to a certain legacy' { under the will of the deceased. Hence she was interested in the event of this action, and could not testify as to personal transactions with the deceased against his executor. It is true that her interest was adverse to that of the person calling her as a witness. But it has been decided that this section makes no exception on that account. (LeClare v. Stewart, 8 Hun, 127; Howell v.

Taylor, 11 Hun, 214; Cornell v. Cornell, 12 Hun, 312.)

The judgment must he reversed, reference discharged, and a new trial granted; costs to abide the final order of the court.

Present — Learned, P. J.; Boardman and Westbrook, JJ.

Judgment reversed; new trial granted; reference discharged; costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gifford-v-sackett-nysupct-1878.