Case ID: ny-sup-ct_11/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "James, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ELAM LOOMIS, Respondent, v. LeROY MOWRY and others, Appellants.
    
      Search for written instrument— necessa/ry to enable party to give parol pn'oof of its contents — cross-examination of witness.
    
    This action was brought to recover damages for the alleged conversion of a note. The complaint charged that in September, 1870, the plaintiff made a note for $534, payable to one Sanborn, who is alleged to have indorsed it. It is then alleged that the note was received by the defendants upon the agreement that it should be returned to the plaintiff before maturity; that it matured December - 4, -1870; that the defendants did not return it, but before maturity sold and converted it.
    The question on this appeal is raised by exceptions taken to refusals of the court below to allow a cross-examination of a witness upon the question whether he had made proper search for a written instrument, as to the contents of which parol evidence was given on the trial. The court at General Term held, that such refusal was error, and reversed the judgment and granted a new trial, costs to abide the event.
    
      U. G. Paris, for the appellants.
    
      Hughes & Northrup, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

James, J.

Present—Learned, P. J., Boardman and J ames, JJ.

Judgment reversed, and new trial .granted, costs to abide event.