Werely v. . Persons

28 N.Y. 344
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 5, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 28 N.Y. 344 (Werely v. . Persons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Werely v. . Persons, 28 N.Y. 344 (N.Y. 1863).

Opinions

I am not able to distinguish this case, in principle, from those of Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird, (6 East, 188;) Gray v.Young, (Harper, 38;) and Caldwell v. Murphy, (1 Kern. 416.) The declarations in this case are a little more remote than in the previous cases, and the circumstances are such as to throw more doubt upon their sincerity, but their remoteness was not such as to furnish a ground for their exclusion. I think it entirely safe to leave the question to the jury in all such cases, whether any and what credit shall be given to such declarations. As was said by Judge JOHNSON, in the case of Gray v. Young, (supra,) *Page 345 where, in an action on the warranty of the soundness of a slave, the declarations of the slave were allowed to be proved against the defendant, "No evil can possibly result from such a principle; for if unattended by any external symptoms of disease, they never could gain credit. Whatever might be the declarations, or complaints, no one would be accredited for them, who exhibited all the appearances of robust health and vigor, without the most palpable demonstration of an existing disease." The present case appears to me to illustrate the correctness of this reasoning. If the jury had given the least credit to the declarations of the plaintiff, as to the long continuance of his suffering, their verdict would probably have been much larger than it was.

I think the judgment should be affirmed.

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

Related

Creveling v. Banta
115 N.W. 598 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1908)
McCready v. Staten Island Electric Railroad
51 A.D. 338 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
L. S. & M. S. R. R. Co. v. Yokes
5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 599 (Mahoning Circuit Court, 1895)
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. R. Co. v. Yokes
12 Ohio C.C. 499 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1895)
Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad v. Spilker
33 N.E. 280 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Schuler v. Third Avenue Railroad
20 N.Y.S. 683 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892)
Kennedy v. Rochester City & Brighton Railroad
7 N.Y.S. 221 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
Roche v. . Brooklyn City Newtown R.R. Co.
11 N.E. 630 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)
McKeigue v. City of Janesville
31 N.W. 298 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1887)
De Long v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
44 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 282 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
Sanders v. Reister
1 Dakota 151 (Supreme Court of Dakota, 1875)
Gardner v. Bennett
6 Jones & S. 197 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1874)
Reed v. . the New York Central R.R. Co.
45 N.Y. 574 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Murphy v. New York Central Railroad
66 Barb. 125 (New York Supreme Court, 1867)
Matteson v. . New York Central Railroad
35 N.Y. 487 (New York Court of Appeals, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 N.Y. 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werely-v-persons-ny-1863.