Case ID: ny-st-rep_37/html/0174-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hugh Hall, App’lt, v. Christopher G. Littleton, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 9, 1891.)
    
    Judgment—Foreign—Note signed by mark.
    In an action brought upon a Pennsylvania judgment entered upon a. judgment note which was signed with a cross, where the defendant denies the execution of the note, the witness to the signature is dead and there is no direct evidence of its execution, a verdict in favor of the defendant will not be disturbed.
    (Barnard, P. J., dissents.)
    Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant, entered on verdict.
    The action was brought to recover $3,283.69 upon a judgment recovered in the court of common pleas, in Pennsylvania", against the defendant.
    The judgment was on a judgment note alleged to have been given by the defendant, who on the trial below denied that he made the note and alleged that the same was a forgery.
    Under the rulings of the trial court, the case went to the jury with only the evidence of the note with defendant’s mark on it and the signature of a man named John Boyle as witness. While there was on defendant’s side the flat testimony that he never made the note.
    
      Ayres & Walker (Joseph F. Daly, of counsel), for app’lt; Alfred P. Page, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

This action is based upon a judgment recovered against the defendant in the state of Pennsylvania upon a judgment note without the service of process upon the defendant or any appearance by him in the action.

In this action the defendant denied the execution of the note, and that was the question of fact submitted to the jury upon the trial and found in favor of the defendant.

The note was signed by a cross, and the name of John Boyle was signed as a witness, but Boyle was dead at the time of the trial, and there was no direct proof of the execution of the note by the defendant, and he denied the same. Under such proof the verdict cannot be disturbed, and we find no error in the record which would justify a reversal of the judgment

The judgment and order should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., dissents.