Northrup v. Healy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Northrup v. Healy

84 N.Y.S. 1137

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 1137 (Northrup v. Healy) 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

Northrup v. Healy, 84 N.Y.S. 1137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein. Held, that the trial court committed error prejudicial to the defendant in refusing to charge, at the request of his counsel, that if Mr. Barnum, the attorney for the plaintiff, advised the defendant, in the presence of the plaintiff, to give up the note in suit to Mr. Tilley, the maker thereof, and the plaintiff did not object thereto, but remained silent, the jury might find the cause of his failure to speak or protest against such advice, that he was estopped from questioning the subsequent surrender of said note to Tilley by the defendant.

WILLIAMS, J., dissents. STOVER, J., not voting.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, upon questions of law only; the facts having been examined and no error found therein. Held, that the trial court committed error prejudicial to the defendant in refusing to charge, at the request of his counsel, that if Mr. Barnum, the attorney for the plaintiff, advised the defendant, in the presence of the plaintiff, to give up the note in suit to Mr. Tilley, the maker thereof, and the plaintiff did not object thereto, but remained silent, the jury might find the cause of his failure to speak or protest against such advice, that he was estopped from questioning the subsequent surrender of said note to Tilley by the defendant.

WILLIAMS, J., dissents. STOVER, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 1137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northrup-v-healy-nyappdiv-1903.