Case ID: misc_30/html/0460-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam..\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrick O’Day, Respondent, v. The J. Chris. G. Hupfel Brewing Co., Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    February, 1900.)
    Judgment — Supported on appeal by record evidence not offered below.
    An omission to introduce record evidence, relative to the incorpo- • ration of an alleged corporation, may be supplied on appeal In order to support the judgment below.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal' Court of the city of Hew York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan.
    Chris G. Hupfel, for appellant.
    Robert J. Robeson, for respondent.
   Per Curiam..

The sole question presented on this appeal concerns the sufficiency of the proof of corporate existence. Such defect as existed has been obviated by proof presented on this appeal, ■and, being record evidence, is under the authorities admissible for the purpose of sustaining the judgment below. Dunford v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445; Munoz v. Wilson, 111 id. 299; Dunham v. Townshend, 118 id. 281; Bank of Charleston v. Emeric, 2 Sandf. 718. The judgment should be affirmed. -

Present: Freedman, P. J.; MacLean and Leventritt, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.