Shanley v. Sheehan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shanley v. Sheehan

253 A.D. 786, 1 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5537

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 786 (Shanley v. Sheehan) 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

Shanley v. Sheehan, 253 A.D. 786, 1 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Rensselaer County Court, which affirmed a judgment of the Troy City Court dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in an action brought to recover upon a promissory note payable to and found among the papers of plaintiff’s testatrix. The evidence of a disinterested witness concerning the payment of a sum of money by the defendant Thomas M. Sheehan to testatrix on August 1, 1936 (the note is dated November 2, 1935), and the conversation in relation thereto, sustains the findings of payment. It is further sustained by the fact that the decedent lived for several months after the note became due and there is no evidence that payment was demanded. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present ■ — ■ Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Rensselaer County Court, which affirmed a judgment of the Troy City Court dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in an action brought to recover upon a promissory note payable to and found among the papers of plaintiff’s testatrix. The evidence of a disinterested witness concerning the payment of a sum of money by the defendant Thomas M. Sheehan to testatrix on August 1, 1936 (the note is dated November 2, 1935), and the conversation in relation thereto, sustains the findings of payment. It is further sustained by the fact that the decedent lived for several months after the note became due and there is no evidence that payment was demanded. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present ■ — ■ Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 786, 1 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shanley-v-sheehan-nyappdiv-1937.