Pressinger v. Woodhull

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pressinger v. Woodhull

101 N.Y.S. 36

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 14, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 101 N.Y.S. 36 (Pressinger v. Woodhull) 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

Pressinger v. Woodhull, 101 N.Y.S. 36 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought two actions against defendant. Each action is to recover for money loaned. They were tried together by the court and a jury upon the same evidence. Upon the trial the defendant admitted receiving the money from the plaintiff. The defense set up in the answer is payment. The plaintiff was the only witness sworn. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff’s evidence was “conflicting and palpably false.” In deciding the motion the trial judge said: “I cannot go into that. That is for the jury”-—and then granted the motion. Exception was duly taken by the plaintiff.

While some of plaintiff’s testimony cannot be said to be free from inherent improbablities, she certainly made out a prima facie case, which should have been submitted to the jury. The receipt of the money was admitted, and the plaintiff swore it had not been paid. There should be a new trial, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought two actions against defendant. Each action is to recover for money loaned. They were tried together by the court and a jury upon the same evidence. Upon the trial the defendant admitted receiving the money from the plaintiff. The defense set up in the answer is payment. The plaintiff was the only witness sworn. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff’s evidence was “conflicting and palpably false.” In deciding the motion the trial judge said: “I cannot go into that. That is for the jury”-—and then granted the motion. Exception was duly taken by the plaintiff.

While some of plaintiff’s testimony cannot be said to be free from inherent improbablities, she certainly made out a prima facie case, which should have been submitted to the jury. The receipt of the money was admitted, and the plaintiff swore it had not been paid. There should be a new trial, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.Y.S. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pressinger-v-woodhull-nyappterm-1906.