State Bank v. Greenberg

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

State Bank v. Greenberg

95 N.Y.S. 503

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 95 N.Y.S. 503 (State Bank v. Greenberg) 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

State Bank v. Greenberg, 95 N.Y.S. 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion the ends of justice would be best served if this case were to be retried. The action is upon a promissory note, and the defense is forgery. Obviously there is flat perjury on one side or the other. The authenticity of the note is upheld by a single witness, in whose testimony is to be found much inconsistency and improbability. ■ Witnesses whose evidence might throw light upon the question are not produced, and some of the exhibits used on the trial are not attached to the return. Particularly do we miss samples of the handwriting of the two defendants. The testimony of plaintiff’s witness is that the note was signed by one of the defendants in the witness’ presence. Upon the trial both of the defendants were required to write their own names and that of their firm, and did so. The samples thus written were examined, as the record shows, by both counsel, but were apparently not put.in evidence and are not attached to the return. In short, in the face of the flat contradiction as to the [504]*504signature upon the note, the most ordinary tests commonly applied in such cases were not resorted to.

The judgment will be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion the ends of justice would be best served if this case were to be retried. The action is upon a promissory note, and the defense is forgery. Obviously there is flat perjury on one side or the other. The authenticity of the note is upheld by a single witness, in whose testimony is to be found much inconsistency and improbability. ■ Witnesses whose evidence might throw light upon the question are not produced, and some of the exhibits used on the trial are not attached to the return. Particularly do we miss samples of the handwriting of the two defendants. The testimony of plaintiff’s witness is that the note was signed by one of the defendants in the witness’ presence. Upon the trial both of the defendants were required to write their own names and that of their firm, and did so. The samples thus written were examined, as the record shows, by both counsel, but were apparently not put.in evidence and are not attached to the return. In short, in the face of the flat contradiction as to the [504]*504signature upon the note, the most ordinary tests commonly applied in such cases were not resorted to.

The judgment will be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.Y.S. 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bank-v-greenberg-nyappterm-1905.