Ran v. Torchiani

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ran v. Torchiani

84 N.Y.S. 886

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 886 (Ran v. Torchiani) 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

Ran v. Torchiani, 84 N.Y.S. 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record presents a simple conflict in the testimony given by the respective parties in their own behalf, and the probabilities are not sufficiently with the defendant to justify the reversal of the judgment, which is founded upon the justice’s estimate of the relative credibility of the witnesses whose testimony was given before him. Whether the statement introduced to show a settlement of accounts was inconsistent with the claim in suit depended upon the value of the plaintiff’s assertion that this claim was not embraced within the account deemed by the parties to be adjusted, and was reserved from the settlement; and, while a point is made by the defendant of the plaintiff’s “repayment” of loans made by the former without deducting the amount of this claim, it appears that the repayment was in the form of work, not cash, so the inference sought to be drawn is not cogent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The record presents a simple conflict in the testimony given by the respective parties in their own behalf, and the probabilities are not sufficiently with the defendant to justify the reversal of the judgment, which is founded upon the justice’s estimate of the relative credibility of the witnesses whose testimony was given before him. Whether the statement introduced to show a settlement of accounts was inconsistent with the claim in suit depended upon the value of the plaintiff’s assertion that this claim was not embraced within the account deemed by the parties to be adjusted, and was reserved from the settlement; and, while a point is made by the defendant of the plaintiff’s “repayment” of loans made by the former without deducting the amount of this claim, it appears that the repayment was in the form of work, not cash, so the inference sought to be drawn is not cogent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ran-v-torchiani-nyappterm-1903.