Schwartz v. Horn Michael Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Horn Michael Co.

113 N.Y.S. 611

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 611 (Schwartz v. Horn Michael Co.) 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

Schwartz v. Horn Michael Co., 113 N.Y.S. 611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

HENDRICK, J.

The plaintiff, suing the defendant upon a promissory note, alleged that the defendant by Charles Michaels, its president, made and delivered to one Morris Schwartz its promissory note, etc. The only testimony given as to the execution of the note which was thereafter admitted as evidence over the defendant’s objection was by Morris Schwartz, who testified that he knew “Michael Horn; that he [Horn] gave him the note; that he knew his signature and saw him sign the note in question.” The witness was evidently confused or his attorney was heedless, as it is evident that he saw Mr. Michaels of the Michael Horn Company sign the note. Nevertheless there is no proof in the record that the defendant by any of its authorized officers executed the note, and there must be a new trial.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

HENDRICK, J.

The plaintiff, suing the defendant upon a promissory note, alleged that the defendant by Charles Michaels, its president, made and delivered to one Morris Schwartz its promissory note, etc. The only testimony given as to the execution of the note which was thereafter admitted as evidence over the defendant’s objection was by Morris Schwartz, who testified that he knew “Michael Horn; that he [Horn] gave him the note; that he knew his signature and saw him sign the note in question.” The witness was evidently confused or his attorney was heedless, as it is evident that he saw Mr. Michaels of the Michael Horn Company sign the note. Nevertheless there is no proof in the record that the defendant by any of its authorized officers executed the note, and there must be a new trial.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-horn-michael-co-nyappterm-1908.