Case Name: John P. Conselyea and Others, Appellants, v. Primus Van Dorn, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-12-30
Citations: 129 A.D. 520
Docket Number: 
Parties: John P. Conselyea and Others, Appellants, v. Primus Van Dorn, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 520–522

Head Matter:
John P. Conselyea and Others, Appellants, v. Primus Van Dorn, Respondent.
Second Department,
December 30, 1908.
Evidence — ejectment — admissions of defendant.
The plaintiff in an action of ejectment may prove any admissions made by the defendant showing or tending to show that he did not claim title to the premises.
In order to prove the admissions of a party to an action it is not necessary to call his attention to the time and place they were made.
Gaynor, J., concurred in result, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiffs, John P. Conselyea and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 24th day of January, 1908, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 3d day of February, 1908, denying the plaintiffs’ motion to strike from said judgment the sum of $250, additional allowance of costs, and in the alternative to reduce the said allowance to $150.
Frederick H. Cox, for the appellants.
James C. Van Siclen, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Jenks, J.:
This appeal is from a judgment for the defendant in an action for ejectment wherein a verdict was directed at Trial Term.
I think that the plaintiffs should have been permitted to prove, if they could, any statements made by the defendant which showed or which tended to show that he did not make claim of title to the premises in dispute. How much such statements are worth is not for us to say. In Colvin v. Burnet (17 Wend. 569) Co wen, J., for the court, says : " It is well known that a single lisp of acknowledgment by the defendant that he claims no title, fastens a character upon his possession which makes it unavailable for ages." (See, too, Cutting v. Burns, 57 App. Div. 185; De Lancey v. Hawkins, 23 id. 8, 14; affd., 163 N. Y. 587.) I cannot infer that the learned court excluded these statements for any reason save that the objections made that they were irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial were good, but in view of a new trial it may be well to point out that the questions were sufficiently explicit and definite, for the rule that the attention of a witness must be called to the time and the place when and where he made the alleged statements does not obtain when he is a party. (Blossom v. Barrett, 37 N. Y. 434;Ruemer v. Clark, 121 App. Div. 231.) Moreover, the different hearers of the alleged statements were specified in the questions.
The judgment and order are reversed and a new trial is granted, costs to abide the event.
Woodward, Hooker and Miller, JJ., concurred; Gaynor, J., concurred in separate opinion.