Mercer v. Sayre
7 Johns. 306
Opinion
The evidence offered was material, inasmuch as it went to destroy any presumption that the money was actually received by the defendant at the time the action was brought. The judge, under the circumstances of the case, had a discretion to admit the evidence; and it ought, in sound discretion, to have1 been received. We think, therefore, that the defendants are entitled to a new trial, with costs to abide the event of the suit.
Motion granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mercer v. Sayre, 7 Johns. 306 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).
7 Johns. 306 (Mercer v. Sayre) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Smith v. Clews
14 Abb. N. Cas. 465 (New York Supreme Court, 1884)
Burroughs v. State
17 Fla. 643 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1880)
Baze v. Arper
6 Minn. 220 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1861)
Lewis v. Ryder
13 Abb. Pr. 1 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1861)
Pryne v. Westfall
3 Barb. 496 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Clapp v. Wilson
5 Denio 285 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Merrills v. Law
9 Cow. 64 (New York Supreme Court, 1828)
Richardson v. Debuys & Longer
4 Mart. (N.S.) 127 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1826)
Mercer v. Sayer & Toler
1 Ant. N.P. Cas. 162 (New York Supreme Court, 1809)