Porter v. Parks

New York Supreme Court

Porter v. Parks

9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 654

DecidedJuly 1, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 654 (Porter v. Parks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porter v. Parks, 9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 654 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.:

It was a vital question to the plaintiff’s recovery in this action, whether the defendants, at the time of the hypothecation of the stock in dispute, had notice of the plaintiff’s ownership. There [655]*655was a direct conflict between the evidence of William 0. Porter and William M. Parks, on this subject.

The defendants called as a witness, Henry Stanton, the agent of William C. Porter. He testified that he did not hear any communication of the fact, that Miss Porter owned the stock, made to Parks, upon the occasion when William C. Porter says he made it. Upon the former trial, Stanton had been sworn for defendants, and upon his cross-examination, plaintiff had been permitted, without objection, to read extracts from his letter to William 0. Porter, in which Stanton spoke of the scrip, as belonging to plaintiff, as safe, and that he would see it would not be jeopardized; that he did not recollect whether he told Parks the same thing. Upon this trial, the plaintiff offered to read the former cross-examination of Stanton, and defendants’ counsel objected to the reading of the letter. This objection was overruled and an exception taken.

I think this ruling was erroneous. The letter did not bind the defendants. They were, as to them, acts between strangers. Letters from an agent to his principal cannot be given in evidence against a third person.

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

Barnard, P. J.:

It was a vital question to the plaintiff’s recovery in this action, whether the defendants, at the time of the hypothecation of the stock in dispute, had notice of the plaintiff’s ownership. There [655]*655was a direct conflict between the evidence of William 0. Porter and William M. Parks, on this subject.

The defendants called as a witness, Henry Stanton, the agent of William C. Porter. He testified that he did not hear any communication of the fact, that Miss Porter owned the stock, made to Parks, upon the occasion when William C. Porter says he made it. Upon the former trial, Stanton had been sworn for defendants, and upon his cross-examination, plaintiff had been permitted, without objection, to read extracts from his letter to William 0. Porter, in which Stanton spoke of the scrip, as belonging to plaintiff, as safe, and that he would see it would not be jeopardized; that he did not recollect whether he told Parks the same thing. Upon this trial, the plaintiff offered to read the former cross-examination of Stanton, and defendants’ counsel objected to the reading of the letter. This objection was overruled and an exception taken.

I think this ruling was erroneous. The letter did not bind the defendants. They were, as to them, acts between strangers. Letters from an agent to his principal cannot be given in evidence against a third person.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-parks-nysupct-1874.