Platner v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 08 June 1908 |
| Citation | 76 N.J.L. 239,69 A. 1007 |
| Parties | PLATNER v. RYAN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Hudson County.
Action by Mamie Platner, assignee of Mary Smith, against Frank Ryan, executor of the will of Jeremiah O'Connell, deceased, for services rendered the decedent and his wife by plaintiff's assignor. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Argued February term, 1908, before GUMMERE, C. J., and BERGEN and MINTURN, JJ.
James A. Gordon, for plaintiff in error. Weller & Lichtenstein, for defendant in error.
This suit was brought to recover for personal services rendered by one Mary Smith to Jeremiah O'Connell, the defendant's testator, and to testator's wife, during his lifetime. The plaintiff is the daughter of Mrs. Smith, and bases her right to recover for such services upon an assignment of her mother's claim made by the latter to her. She had a verdict and judgment, and the defendant brings error.
In the presentation of the plaintiff's case to the jury the mother was called as a witness to prove the character of the services rendered by her. Upon her cross-examination a series of questions were put to her, calling for answers tending to show that the assignment to her daughter was made without consideration; that it was a mere cover; and that any moneys which should be recovered by the suit would go to her, and not to the plaintiff. The purpose of these questions, as stated by counsel when they were put, was to show the interest of the witness, in order to discredit her testimony. On objection made to their admission by counsel for plaintiff they were overruled, and exception allowed to the defendant. Error is now assigned upon this judicial action. The exclusion of this line of testimony was without legal justification. Mrs. Smith was the plaintiff's principal witness. The amount of the recovery, if the plaintiff succeeded in her suit, depended largely upon her testimony. The jury was of course entitled to know whether or not she was an impartial witness, and by the express provision of our evidence act the interest of the witness in the event of a suit, either as a party or otherwise, can be shown for the purpose of affecting his or her credit. P. L. 1900, p. 362, § 3.
The next assignment of error is directed at the exclusion of a deposition of the plaintiff which was offered in evidence on behalf of the defendant. This deposition was taken before a Supreme Court Commissioner in support of an application made by the plaintiff to open the judgment of non pros. which had been entered against her at an earlier stage of litigation for failure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hawthorne
...purpose of 'affecting his or her credit.' See L. 1859, c. 166. This section has been applied by trial courts (Platner v. Ryan, Ex'r, 76 N.J.L. 239, 241, 69 A. 1007 (Sup.Ct.1908)) but with continuing recognition of their discretionary powers. See State v. Quinlan, 86 N.J.L. 120, 131, 91 A. 1......
-
Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick
...been disqualified. Kempton v. Bartine, 59 N. J. Eq. 149, 44 A. 461, affirmed 60 N. J. Eq. 411, 45 A. 966. See, also, Platner v. Ryan, Executor, 76 N. J. Law, 239, 69 A. 1007. "In enforcing the object of the statute, courts will look at the substance of the cause and observe, through the for......
-
Hoffman v. Maloratsky
...will not lend assistance to efforts to escape the bar of the statute. Snyder v. Harris, 61 N. J. Eq. 480, 48 A. 329; Platner v. Ryan, 76 N. J. Law, 239, 69 A. 1007. No relief can be had in equity. The fact that the rules of evidence will not permit appellants to avail themselves of the only......
-
Ward v. McLellan, 155.
...the pretense of an assignment that is not what it seems would be, in the words of the late Chief Justice Gummere in Platner v. Ryan, Executor, 76 N. J. Law, 239, 69 A. 1007, to connive at "a fraud upon the statute." Mr. Justice Garrison expressed the same thought in Moosbrugger v. Swick, 86......