Scofield v. Kreiser

City of New York Municipal Court

Scofield v. Kreiser

14 N.Y.S. 274, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 185, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1941

DecidedApril 24, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 274 (Scofield v. Kreiser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scofield v. Kreiser, 14 N.Y.S. 274, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 185, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1941 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Newburgher, J.

The plaintiff leased to one Fairbanks certain chattels. The agreement between plaintiff and Fairbanks provided that Fairbanks should pay certain sums of money, as therein set forth; and it further provided that no title should be acquired by said Fairbanks until the said payments had been made as agreed. If all the payments had been made by Fairbanks, as specified in the agreement, the title would have vested in him. • On the trial defendant’s counsel, on cross-examination of plaintiff’s, manager, asked the following questions: “Question. And you received from Fairbanks how much money?” Objected to as immaterial. Objection sustained. Exception. “Q. Will you tell the court and jury how much money in all you received from Fairbanks between the month of August, 1885, and the commencement of this action?” Same objection, ruling, and exception. We think the trial justice erred in excluding the questions. They tended to show the payments made, and, if they amounted to the sum agreed to be paid, divested the plaintiff of the title to the chattels, and vested the title in Fairbanks, and would have prevented a recovery by plaintiff in this action. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Newburgher, J.

The plaintiff leased to one Fairbanks certain chattels. The agreement between plaintiff and Fairbanks provided that Fairbanks should pay certain sums of money, as therein set forth; and it further provided that no title should be acquired by said Fairbanks until the said payments had been made as agreed. If all the payments had been made by Fairbanks, as specified in the agreement, the title would have vested in him. • On the trial defendant’s counsel, on cross-examination of plaintiff’s, manager, asked the following questions: “Question. And you received from Fairbanks how much money?” Objected to as immaterial. Objection sustained. Exception. “Q. Will you tell the court and jury how much money in all you received from Fairbanks between the month of August, 1885, and the commencement of this action?” Same objection, ruling, and exception. We think the trial justice erred in excluding the questions. They tended to show the payments made, and, if they amounted to the sum agreed to be paid, divested the plaintiff of the title to the chattels, and vested the title in Fairbanks, and would have prevented a recovery by plaintiff in this action. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 274, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 185, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scofield-v-kreiser-nynyccityct-1891.