Case ID: nys_10/html/0544-01.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

Goldberg v. Wolff.
    
      (Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
    
    June 18, 1890.)
    1. Trover and Conversion.
    In an action for the alleged conversion of money left with defendant to be sent to a third party, the testimony of plaintiff that he received letters from such third party, saying that she had not received the money, is not sufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff.
    8. Evidence—Hearsay.
    Such letters are hearsay evidence, and not admissible against defendant.
    Appeal from fourth district court.
    Action by Samuel Goldberg against William Wolff, for the alleged conversion of money left with defendant to be sent to plaintiff’s sister. The only evidence of a conversion was the testimony of plaintiff that he had received a letter from the sister saying that she had not received the money. Judgment was given for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Argued before Larremore, O. J., and Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.
    
      Abraham H. Sarahson, for appellant. R. Greenthol, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We regret that we are compelled to reverse this judgment; but, without the contents of the letters which were admitted in evidence under defendant’s objection, Chere is no sufficient proof of the conversion of the money deposited with the defendant. Those letters were not even offered in evidence, their contents only being given. But, even if the letters themselves had been offered, they would not have been evidence against the defendant, not having been written by any party to the action touching the matter in controversy. They were clearly hearsay evidence of a third party not under oath. The judgment should therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs of the appeal to the appellant to abide the event of the action.