Keuka Coll. v. Ray

• Decision Date: 10 May 1901
• Citation: 167 N.Y. 96,60 N.E. 325
• Parties: KEUKA COLLEGE v. RAY.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

167 N.Y. 96

60 N.E. 325

KEUKA COLLEGE

v.RAY.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 10, 1901.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Fourth department.

Action by the Keuka College against George A. Ray. From a judgment of the appellate division (58 N. Y. Supp. 745) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Charles F. Tabor, for appellant.

M. A. Leary, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

This action was brought against the defendant upon a promissory note, which is in the following language: ‘$500. Keuka Park, N. Y., Dec. 29, 1893. In consideration of founding a college at Keuka Park, Yates Co., N. Y., I promise to pay to the treasurer of Keuka College or order, at the office of said college, the sum of five hundred dollars, on or before the first day of January, 1897, with interest annually at five per cent., for the purpose of endowing said Keuka College; and, in case I shall die previous to that date, then this note shall become due and payable in one year from my decease.’ The defense was that the note was unenforceable, as being without any consideration to support it. The case was tried before a judge, without a jury, and findings of fact were made, of which one was ‘that said note is founded upon an adequate, valid, and sufficient consideration.’ The judgment which the plaintiff recovered was unanimously affirmed at the appellate division, and we are concluded from any review of the evidence. Except the correctness of the rulings made by the trial judge in the admission or the rejection of evidence, there is nothing open to our consideration; for the exception to the denial of the motion for a nonsuit presents no question of law within the jurisdiction of this court to review. The grounds advanced in behalf of that motion related to the effect of the evidence upon the issue raised by the pleadings, and the unanimous affirmance of the judgment entered upon the decision of the trial court finally settled any question of that nature. With respect to the trial judge's rulings, the principal contention is that the testimony of a witness was improperly admitted to show what took place at the time the note was given. The witness who gave this testimony was Mr. Ball, the president of the board of trustees of the plaintiff, and he was allowed to state what was said and done by and between him and the defendant. It seems that in 1892 a charter had been granted by the board of regents of the university of this state, provisionally incorporating the plaintiff, until the requirements prescribed by law or by the university ordinances should be fully met. The witness endeavored to procure subscriptions to the amount of $100,000 which the law required as a corporate fund, in order that the plaintiff might receive a permanent charter, and, among others, he approached the defendant. He informed him concerning the plaintiff's project, and that Gen. George J. Magee had promised, in the event of $20,000 being raised within a given time, to give $5,000 to the fund. Seven or eight thousand dollars of the $20,000 had already been subscribed, and the college was endeavoring to raise the balance. The defendant then gave the note in question, and subsequently the plaintiff was successful in meeting the conditions of Gen. Magee's promise, through subscriptions to the amount of $20,000 being made. The college, through its agents, not only spent time and money in getting these further necessary subscriptions, as this testimony showed, but procured an extension of its provisional charter from the regents, to enable it to complete its required fund. The defendant objected to this testimony by Ball, and excepted to the rulings under which it was admitted. His argument is that, as the defendant's agreement was in writing and the consideration specifically named therein, the...