Hall v. Littleton

New York Supreme Court

Hall v. Littleton

13 N.Y.S. 323, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 174, 59 Hun 618, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1087

DecidedFebruary 11, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 13 N.Y.S. 323 (Hall v. Littleton) 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

Hall v. Littleton, 13 N.Y.S. 323, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 174, 59 Hun 618, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1087 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

This action is based upon a judgment recovered against the defendant in the state of Pennsylvania upon a judgment note, without the service of process upon the defendant or any appearance by him in the action. In this action the defendant denied the execution of the note, and that was the question of fact submitted to the jury upon the trial, and found in favor •of the defendant. The note was signed by a cross, and the name of John Boyle was signed as a witness, but Boyle was dead at the time of the trial, and there was no direct proof of the execution of the note by the defendant, and he denied the same. Under such proof, the verdict cannot be disturbed, and we And no error in the record which would justify a reversal of the judgment. The judgment and order should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs. Barnard, P. J., dissents.

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

Dykman, J.

This action is based upon a judgment recovered against the defendant in the state of Pennsylvania upon a judgment note, without the service of process upon the defendant or any appearance by him in the action. In this action the defendant denied the execution of the note, and that was the question of fact submitted to the jury upon the trial, and found in favor •of the defendant. The note was signed by a cross, and the name of John Boyle was signed as a witness, but Boyle was dead at the time of the trial, and there was no direct proof of the execution of the note by the defendant, and he denied the same. Under such proof, the verdict cannot be disturbed, and we And no error in the record which would justify a reversal of the judgment. The judgment and order should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs. Barnard, P. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.Y.S. 323, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 174, 59 Hun 618, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-littleton-nysupct-1891.