Rosenberger v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberger v. Johnson

210 A.D. 319, 206 N.Y.S. 286, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6721

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 24, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D. 319 (Rosenberger v. Johnson) 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.

Bluebook

Rosenberger v. Johnson, 210 A.D. 319, 206 N.Y.S. 286, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The defendant’s motion for a nonsuit was granted on the ground that the execution of the bond on which the action was brought was not proved. A genuine signature for use as a standard of comparison, being the signature upon the Hunger mortgage, was established both by the certificate of acknowledgment and by the oral testimony of the notary who executed the certificate and was received in evidence. The signature upon the bond in question was stated by two qualified witnesses to have been written by the same hand that wrote the signature upon the Hunger mortgage. This was a proper way to establish the genuineness of the signature upon the bond. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 332; Turnure v. Breitung, 195 App. Div. 200; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264.) The bond should have been received in evidence. A prima facie case was, therefore, made out which should have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

All concur. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Davis, Sears, Crouch and Taylor, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide event.

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

Per Curiam:

The defendant’s motion for a nonsuit was granted on the ground that the execution of the bond on which the action was brought was not proved. A genuine signature for use as a standard of comparison, being the signature upon the Hunger mortgage, was established both by the certificate of acknowledgment and by the oral testimony of the notary who executed the certificate and was received in evidence. The signature upon the bond in question was stated by two qualified witnesses to have been written by the same hand that wrote the signature upon the Hunger mortgage. This was a proper way to establish the genuineness of the signature upon the bond. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 332; Turnure v. Breitung, 195 App. Div. 200; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264.) The bond should have been received in evidence. A prima facie case was, therefore, made out which should have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

All concur. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Davis, Sears, Crouch and Taylor, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D. 319, 206 N.Y.S. 286, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberger-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack