Wallis v. Randall

New York Supreme Court

Wallis v. Randall

23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 33

DecidedNovember 15, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 33 (Wallis v. Randall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wallis v. Randall, 23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 33 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

Pincite

Opinions

LEARNED, P. J. :

I am not able to agree with the view expressed in the opinion of Judge Bocees that evidence of the value of the farm was inadmissible. If A. owed B. a debt of $1,000, and A. claimed to have paid it by the transfer of a farm, it seems to me that to show that the farm was worth only $100 would be evidence which would have, and ought to have, some weight in deciding the question.

And so if the dispute were whether the land transferred were a payment or a security of that debt, proof that it was worth $10,000 would influence any mind out of court; and, I think, might properly influence even minds in court.

If one were attempting to prove payment in money, I suppose he would not be limited to proof that he handed the creditor a roll of United States currency, but might show how much there was ; in other words, the value ; and if the debtor averred that he had delivered $5,000 in bills to secure a debt of SI,000, and the [35]*35creditor averred that that amount had been delivered in payment of that debt, I think that the value delivered would be very material.

I concur in the view that the case presents a question of fact, and that there is no ground for reversal on the fact, and I therefore think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

LEARNED, P. J. :

I am not able to agree with the view expressed in the opinion of Judge Bocees that evidence of the value of the farm was inadmissible. If A. owed B. a debt of $1,000, and A. claimed to have paid it by the transfer of a farm, it seems to me that to show that the farm was worth only $100 would be evidence which would have, and ought to have, some weight in deciding the question.

And so if the dispute were whether the land transferred were a payment or a security of that debt, proof that it was worth $10,000 would influence any mind out of court; and, I think, might properly influence even minds in court.

If one were attempting to prove payment in money, I suppose he would not be limited to proof that he handed the creditor a roll of United States currency, but might show how much there was ; in other words, the value ; and if the debtor averred that he had delivered $5,000 in bills to secure a debt of SI,000, and the [35]*35creditor averred that that amount had been delivered in payment of that debt, I think that the value delivered would be very material.

I concur in the view that the case presents a question of fact, and that there is no ground for reversal on the fact, and I therefore think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallis-v-randall-nysupct-1878.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack