Property Repair Corp. v. Kingston Trust Co.
This text of 273 A.D. 783 (Property Repair Corp. v. Kingston Trust Co.) 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.
Opinion
Judgment dismissing complaint on the merits at the close of plaintiff’s case reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. It was improper to exclude testimony by the assignee of the conversation constituting the alleged oral assignment. (Robinson v. Chinese Charitable Assn., 35 App. Div. 439; Epstein V. U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 29 Mise. 295; Barnett V. Prudential Insurance Co., 91 App. Div. 435; Sheridan v. Mayor, 68 N. Y. 30; Bisley V. Phenix Bank of City of New York, 83 N. Y. 318; ef. National Foundry Go. of New York V. Kaufman, 190 App. Div. 956.) The ease of Worrall v. Parmelee (1 N. Y. 519) does not hold to the contrary. There the testimony to which objection was taken was that of strangers to the transaction, who testified to statements made by the assignor at times subsequent to the assignment. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
273 A.D. 783, 76 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1947 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/property-repair-corp-v-kingston-trust-co-nyappdiv-1947.