Mondle v. Martin's

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mondle v. Martin's

213 A.D. 884

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D. 884 (Mondle v. Martin's) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mondle v. Martin's, 213 A.D. 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. We think the admission of plaintiff’s letter of September 28, 1922, was error. This letter was admitted by the learned trial justice “ not as proof of any facts stated in it, but merely as proof of the claim which the man says that he made on the repr. sentative of the defendant.” But the plaintiff had already testified that he had informed defendant’s secretary of just what he claimed. The letter was merely a self-serving declaration, and in a case depending upon the evidence of plaintiff as to an alleged oral agreement we think the letter was incompetent evidence, that it was prejudicial to defendant, and that the exception to its admission presents reversible error. (Steber v. Palm Knitting Co., Inc., 206 App. Div. 439; Alexopoulos Freres, Inc., v. Nemours Trading Corp., 205 id. 39.) We are also of opinion that the verdict sustaining plaintiff’s alleged new oral contract at variance with the existing written contract was contrary to the evidence. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment and order reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. We think the admission of plaintiff’s letter of September 28, 1922, was error. This letter was admitted by the learned trial justice “ not as proof of any facts stated in it, but merely as proof of the claim which the man says that he made on the repr. sentative of the defendant.” But the plaintiff had already testified that he had informed defendant’s secretary of just what he claimed. The letter was merely a self-serving declaration, and in a case depending upon the evidence of plaintiff as to an alleged oral agreement we think the letter was incompetent evidence, that it was prejudicial to defendant, and that the exception to its admission presents reversible error. (Steber v. Palm Knitting Co., Inc., 206 App. Div. 439; Alexopoulos Freres, Inc., v. Nemours Trading Corp., 205 id. 39.) We are also of opinion that the verdict sustaining plaintiff’s alleged new oral contract at variance with the existing written contract was contrary to the evidence. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D. 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mondle-v-martins-nyappdiv-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack