Hatch v. Pryor

New York Court of Appeals

Hatch v. Pryor

3 Keyes 441, 3 Trans. App. 317

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 1867

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 Keyes 441 (Hatch v. Pryor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hatch v. Pryor, 3 Keyes 441, 3 Trans. App. 317 (N.Y. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Porter, J.

Upon the facts found by the referee, the release executed.by Reason would be ineffectual to impair the rights of the plaintiff, but the finding is unavailing to the respondent, as it is'based on evidence which should have been excluded. He gave parol proof, on the hearing, of the agreement between the defendant and Iteason, on which he relied to establish his right of action. It afterward appeared that the contract was reduced to writing; and the respondent neither produced it nor accounted for its non-production. The referee erred in denying the defendant’s motion to strike out the parol proof thus received, and in giving effect to secondary evidence of a promise, embodied in a written contract, the terms of which were unascertained. (Dunn v. Hewitt, 2 Denio, 637; Rogers v. Van Hoesen, 12 Johns. 221; Jenner v. Joliffe, 6 id. 9.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event of the action.

All the judges concurring,- except Hunt and Boches, JJ., who expressed no opinion,

Ordered accordingly.

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

Porter, J.

Upon the facts found by the referee, the release executed.by Reason would be ineffectual to impair the rights of the plaintiff, but the finding is unavailing to the respondent, as it is'based on evidence which should have been excluded. He gave parol proof, on the hearing, of the agreement between the defendant and Iteason, on which he relied to establish his right of action. It afterward appeared that the contract was reduced to writing; and the respondent neither produced it nor accounted for its non-production. The referee erred in denying the defendant’s motion to strike out the parol proof thus received, and in giving effect to secondary evidence of a promise, embodied in a written contract, the terms of which were unascertained. (Dunn v. Hewitt, 2 Denio, 637; Rogers v. Van Hoesen, 12 Johns. 221; Jenner v. Joliffe, 6 id. 9.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event of the action.

All the judges concurring,- except Hunt and Boches, JJ., who expressed no opinion,

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Keyes 441, 3 Trans. App. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-pryor-ny-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack