Skrillow v. Rubonovitz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Skrillow v. Rubonovitz

113 N.Y.S. 835

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 9, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 835 (Skrillow v. Rubonovitz) 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

Skrillow v. Rubonovitz, 113 N.Y.S. 835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sued upon a judgment recovered in favor of his assignor against the defendant in the court of common [836]*836pleas of McKean county, in the state of Pennsylvania. The only question presented for review upon this appeal is the ruling of the trial justice in excluding the judgment roll offered by the plaintiff.

The court excluded the judgment roll upon the ground that it was not properly exemplified, under section 952 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment roll was not exemplified in the manner prescribed by section 952 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but was authenticated in the manner provided by section 905 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 677). It should have been received in evidence. Section 952 of the Code of Civil Procedure only provides for the authentication of copies of records of courts of foreign countries, and has no application to the records of courts of other states of the Union. Trebilcox v. McAlpine, 46 Hun, 469, 471, 472; Van Deventer v. Mortimer, 56 Misc. Rep. 650, 651, 107 N. Y. Supp. 564. Provision for the reception as evidence of the records of courts of other states in this country is made by section 905 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to. abide the event. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sued upon a judgment recovered in favor of his assignor against the defendant in the court of common [836]*836pleas of McKean county, in the state of Pennsylvania. The only question presented for review upon this appeal is the ruling of the trial justice in excluding the judgment roll offered by the plaintiff.

The court excluded the judgment roll upon the ground that it was not properly exemplified, under section 952 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment roll was not exemplified in the manner prescribed by section 952 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but was authenticated in the manner provided by section 905 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 677). It should have been received in evidence. Section 952 of the Code of Civil Procedure only provides for the authentication of copies of records of courts of foreign countries, and has no application to the records of courts of other states of the Union. Trebilcox v. McAlpine, 46 Hun, 469, 471, 472; Van Deventer v. Mortimer, 56 Misc. Rep. 650, 651, 107 N. Y. Supp. 564. Provision for the reception as evidence of the records of courts of other states in this country is made by section 905 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to. abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skrillow-v-rubonovitz-nyappterm-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack