Knapp v. . Wallace

41 N.Y. 477
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 5, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 41 N.Y. 477 (Knapp v. . Wallace) 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
Knapp v. . Wallace, 41 N.Y. 477 (N.Y. 1869).

Opinion

Lott, J.

This action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of New York, by the plaintiff, as the assignee of Daniel Messmore, to recover compensation for services rendered by him to the defendant under a special contract in the purchase of two houses and lots in the city of New York.

The referee, to whom the issues were referred for trial, found in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment rendered on his decision was affirmed by the General Term of that court.

It is therefore, conclusive on this court upon the questions of fact, and I find no ground for the reversal of the judgment for errors of law.

It was no defence to the plaintiff’s claim, that the title to' the property was defective.' Messmore had not undertaken that it should be good. The contract between him and the defendant did not place his right to compensation on such a condition.

The defendant pleaded a set-off, and on asking one of the witnesses, who were the grantees of the Hicaragua Transit Company referred to in the defence, announced that the object of the question was to prove the set-off set up in his answer, which was objected to, 1st, on the ground “ that the grant, if any, must be produced as the best evidence; that parol evidence is inadmissibleand 2d, on the ground that the claim sought to be set off was not a demand, the amount of which was liquidated or capable of being ascertained by cal eulation.”

The objection was sustained, and the defendant’s counsel excepted, but the exception is not relied on by him on this *480 appeal,'and it is sufficient to say, that the evidence offered was clearly inadmissible.

The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

Mason, J., also delivered an opinion for affirmance.

All concurring.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Pease & Elliman, Inc. v. S. H. Kress Co.
8 Misc. 2d 982 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Cash v. Diamond
208 Misc. 712 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1955)
Van Vliet & Place, Inc. v. Gaines
162 N.E. 600 (New York Court of Appeals, 1928)
Freeman v. Creelman
212 P. 56 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Triplett v. Feasel
182 P. 551 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1919)
Jamison v. Harrison
10 Ohio App. 454 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1919)
Farrington v. McClellan
146 P. 1051 (California Court of Appeal, 1915)
Cavanaugh v. Conway
90 A. 1080 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1914)
Ketcham v. Axelson
142 N.W. 62 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1913)
Justy v. Erro
117 P. 575 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Smith v. . Peyrot
94 N.E. 662 (New York Court of Appeals, 1911)
Bell v. Stedman
130 N.W. 257 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1911)
Weaver v. Richards
108 N.W. 382 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)
Dotson v. Milliken
27 App. D.C. 500 (D.C. Circuit, 1906)
Long v. Thompson
84 P. 552 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
Alt v. Doscher
102 A.D. 344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
Clark v. Henry G. Thompson & Son Co.
52 A. 720 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1902)
Roche v. Smith
51 L.R.A. 510 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Brown v. Grassman
65 N.Y.S. 1126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Block v. Ryan
4 App. D.C. 283 (D.C. Circuit, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 N.Y. 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-wallace-ny-1869.