Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Silv. Sup. 539

Graves v. Graves

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1889

New York Supreme Court · decided 1889-02-15

<p>Witness. Credibility.—Where a witness testifies to an agreement between the testator and the sole devisee that she would divide the property equally between the testator’s children, but on his cross-examination admits that he had stated, on a compromise of a judgment against one of the children, to the judgment creditor that this child would never get anything from the estate unless it was given to him by said devisee, it is error not to permit the witness to state that the settlement was made upon the previous voluntary offer of the holder of the ^judgment, and that the statement was casual and not made to induce a settlement.</p>

Decided 1889-02-15

Hardin, P. J.

¶1I concur in that part of the opinion of Merwin, J., which points out the error in refusing the offer by the plaintiff to show by the witness Ramsdell that the settlement of the judgment against Silas Graves was made upon the voluntary offer of the holder of the judgment previously made, and by reason of that error I think a new trial should be granted. The questions of fact involved in the case are very important, and the evidence of Ramsdell is vital upon the principal and pivotal question.

¶2Because the principal question of fact has been once passed upon by a trial judge, a new trial before a jury upon issues settled would, perhaps, be more satisfactory. These views lead me to concur in the result and join Merwin, J., favoring a reversal of the judgment now before us.

¶3The judgment should be reversed on the exceptions and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

¶4Martin, J.—I concur in result on ground stated in memorandum of Hardin, P. J.

/5/silvsup/539 · .json · Public domain