Rice v. Kabak

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rice v. Kabak

72 Misc. 16, 128 N.Y.S. 1092

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 Misc. 16 (Rice v. Kabak) 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

Rice v. Kabak, 72 Misc. 16, 128 N.Y.S. 1092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Seabury, J.

The pleadings in this case were oral. The complaint was one for money had and received and the answer was a general denial and payment. The plaintiff proved that he deposited with the defendant, between November 9,1910, and November 29, 1910, various sums aggregating in amount 'the sum of $395.50, and that he had received on account several sums amounting to the sum of $340.50. The amount claimed in the summons was $55. The justice of the lower court gave a judgment in favor of the defendant, and based his reasc-n therefor, primarily, upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proof. Under the pleadings and the proof the burden of proving payment rested upon the defendant and not the plaintiff. Acharan v. Samuel Brothers, 144 App. Div. 182.

. The plaintiff was not required to prove a negative and establish the fact that he had not yet been repaid. The issue [17]*17in dispute was a narrow one; and, as the court decided it upon the ground that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, the judgment must be reversed.

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

Lehman and Gerard, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

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

Seabury, J.

The pleadings in this case were oral. The complaint was one for money had and received and the answer was a general denial and payment. The plaintiff proved that he deposited with the defendant, between November 9,1910, and November 29, 1910, various sums aggregating in amount 'the sum of $395.50, and that he had received on account several sums amounting to the sum of $340.50. The amount claimed in the summons was $55. The justice of the lower court gave a judgment in favor of the defendant, and based his reasc-n therefor, primarily, upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proof. Under the pleadings and the proof the burden of proving payment rested upon the defendant and not the plaintiff. Acharan v. Samuel Brothers, 144 App. Div. 182.

. The plaintiff was not required to prove a negative and establish the fact that he had not yet been repaid. The issue [17]*17in dispute was a narrow one; and, as the court decided it upon the ground that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, the judgment must be reversed.

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

Lehman and Gerard, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Misc. 16, 128 N.Y.S. 1092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-kabak-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack