Krischevsky v. Battali

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Krischevsky v. Battali

84 N.Y.S. 1132

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 1132 (Krischevsky v. Battali) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Krischevsky v. Battali, 84 N.Y.S. 1132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of his deceased wife, to recover upon a written acknowledgment of a loan, dated April 1, 1902, with interest. The defendant admitted the making and delivery of the admission of indebtedness, and set up payment, in proof of which she offered a receipt, dated July l4, 1902, for a larger amount. Some evidence given by the defendant was possibly objectionable under section 829, Code Civ. Proc., despite -an allusion by the administrator himself to the transaction of his wife. But, disregarding the objectionable testimony, a daughter of the deceased and a neighbor gave evidence amply sufficient to show that the receipt was written in 1902 upon and coincident with the payment of the money. The judgment should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of his deceased wife, to recover upon a written acknowledgment of a loan, dated April 1, 1902, with interest. The defendant admitted the making and delivery of the admission of indebtedness, and set up payment, in proof of which she offered a receipt, dated July l4, 1902, for a larger amount. Some evidence given by the defendant was possibly objectionable under section 829, Code Civ. Proc., despite -an allusion by the administrator himself to the transaction of his wife. But, disregarding the objectionable testimony, a daughter of the deceased and a neighbor gave evidence amply sufficient to show that the receipt was written in 1902 upon and coincident with the payment of the money. The judgment should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 1132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krischevsky-v-battali-nyappterm-1903.