Steinman v. Henry Morgenthau Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinman v. Henry Morgenthau Co.

151 N.Y.S. 886

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 4, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 151 N.Y.S. 886 (Steinman v. Henry Morgenthau 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

Steinman v. Henry Morgenthau Co., 151 N.Y.S. 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEARN, J.

The owner of the premises was the Henry Morgenthaii Company. The appellant, Kashare, who also claimed to have earned the commission, was made a party defendant on interpleader; the owner having paid the amount involved into court.

Plaintiff’s case was based upon the claim that one Fannie Shapiro, who took title, was merely a dummy for the real purchaser, her father, [887]*887one Gerston. Concededly plaintiffs had nothing to do with Mrs. Shapiro, who was brought to the owner by the appellant, Kashare, who took an active part in the negotiations and was present at the closing of title. Although, in order to recover, plaintiffs were obliged to prove that Gerston was the real purchaser, the court charged the jury, “The burden of proving this cause of action is equal in this case/’ and refused to charge that “the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs Steinman to show that Mr. Gerston is the real purchaser of the property.” Of course this was error, for the burden of proof is always on the party alleging a fact necessary to sustain his claim. An error in charging a jury as to the burden of proof could not fail to be prejudicial.

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

SHEARN, J.

The owner of the premises was the Henry Morgenthaii Company. The appellant, Kashare, who also claimed to have earned the commission, was made a party defendant on interpleader; the owner having paid the amount involved into court.

Plaintiff’s case was based upon the claim that one Fannie Shapiro, who took title, was merely a dummy for the real purchaser, her father, [887]*887one Gerston. Concededly plaintiffs had nothing to do with Mrs. Shapiro, who was brought to the owner by the appellant, Kashare, who took an active part in the negotiations and was present at the closing of title. Although, in order to recover, plaintiffs were obliged to prove that Gerston was the real purchaser, the court charged the jury, “The burden of proving this cause of action is equal in this case/’ and refused to charge that “the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs Steinman to show that Mr. Gerston is the real purchaser of the property.” Of course this was error, for the burden of proof is always on the party alleging a fact necessary to sustain his claim. An error in charging a jury as to the burden of proof could not fail to be prejudicial.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 N.Y.S. 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinman-v-henry-morgenthau-co-nyappterm-1915.