Case ID: nys_67/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UELAND v. HIBBARD.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 19, 1900.)
    Bills and Notes—Evidence—Admissibility—Laws op Other States.
    Where, in an action against the indorser of a note executed in another ■ state, plaintiff does not plead the law of the latter state, and defendant avers what the law was as to charging an indorser, plaintiff cannot show that under the law of such state defendant was a joint maker, as the only-issue is as to whether the law was as defendant alleged it.
    Appeal from city court of New York, general term.
    Action by Andreas Ueland, as receiver, against Charles B. Hibbard. Prom a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See 65 N. Y. Supp. 790.
    Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and SCOTT and DUGRO, JJ.
    Creevey & Rogers, for -appellant.
    Omri P. Hibbard, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

As the plaintiff did not plead the law of Minnesota, and the defendant in defense pleaded that it was a certain way, the issue raised was as to whether the law of Minnesota was as the defendant alleged or not. The plaintiff was not thereunder entitled to prove what the law of Minnesota was, except for the purpose of showing that it was not as alleged by the defendant. The plaintiff had not, therefore, the right to show that the defendant was, according to the Minnesota law, a joint maker. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.