Ranney v. Gwynne

New York Court of Common Pleas

Ranney v. Gwynne

3 E.D. Smith 59

DecidedApril 15, 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 3 E.D. Smith 59 (Ranney v. Gwynne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ranney v. Gwynne, 3 E.D. Smith 59 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court. Daly, J.

The defendant was not entitled to an adjournment, as a matter of right, because his counsel was engaged or absent, and the refusal of the justice to grant it,' furnishes no ground for reversing the judgment.

No objection appears to have been taken to the proof of the assignment. Unless it appear by the return that an objection was made upon the trial, the point is not available upon appeal. Won constat—but the plaintiff, had the objection been made, would have supplied the necessary proof.

The assignor proved that he rendered medical services in the defendant’s family, in the year 1850 and 1851, to the amount of $40. A payment of $17 was admitted, and the plaintiff’s claim was limited to the residue. Any presumption that might have arisen from the date of the receipt for the $17 was removed by the testimony of the assignor, and a receipt is always open to explanation.

The judgment should be affirmed.

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

By the Court. Daly, J.

The defendant was not entitled to an adjournment, as a matter of right, because his counsel was engaged or absent, and the refusal of the justice to grant it,' furnishes no ground for reversing the judgment.

No objection appears to have been taken to the proof of the assignment. Unless it appear by the return that an objection was made upon the trial, the point is not available upon appeal. Won constat—but the plaintiff, had the objection been made, would have supplied the necessary proof.

The assignor proved that he rendered medical services in the defendant’s family, in the year 1850 and 1851, to the amount of $40. A payment of $17 was admitted, and the plaintiff’s claim was limited to the residue. Any presumption that might have arisen from the date of the receipt for the $17 was removed by the testimony of the assignor, and a receipt is always open to explanation.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 E.D. Smith 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ranney-v-gwynne-nyctcompl-1854.