Case Name: FISK v. HOLDING et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-07-01
Citations: 148 N.Y.S. 501
Docket Number: No. 171-69
Parties: FISK v. HOLDING et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 148
Pages: 501–504

Head Matter:
(163 App. Div. 85)
FISK v. HOLDING et al.
(No. 171-69.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
July 1, 1914.)
1. Doweb (§ 79 )—Actions to Enforce—Sufficiency of Evidence.
In an action to enforce a dower* right as the widow of a decedent under conveyances from whom defendant claimed, on the ground of a ceremonial marriage to decedent certified in a marriage certificate defended on the ground that the certificate was a forgery, in due form, evidence held to authorize a finding of a ceremonial marriage.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Dower, Cent. Dig. §§ 294-306; Dec. Dig. § 79.*]
2. Witnesses (§ 159*)—Competency—Transactions with Decedent.
Plaintiff to establish her dower right was incompetent, under Code Civ. Proc. § 829, to testify that on the day when the marriage was claimed to have been performed she went to the place where the ceremony was certified to have been performed, and met a witness and the wife of the clergyman, who appeared to have performed the ceremony.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 629, 664, 666-669, 671-682; Dec. Dig. § 159.*]
Kellogg and Woodward, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial and Special Terms, Albany County.
Action by Jane W. Fisk against Claude J. Holding, impleaded with another. From an interlocutory judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial to set aside the verdict, defendant Holding appeals.
Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Richard O. Bassett, of Albany, for appellant.
Martin T. Nachtmann, of Albany, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SMITH, P. J.
_ Appellant claims real property through a deed _ from Frank H. Fisk, Jr., who obtained his title through a deed from his father, Frank H. Fisk, now dead, dated June 28, 1910, and recorded in Albany county clerk's office July 18, 1910. Plaintiff claims that upon the 28th of June, 1910, she was the wife of Frank PI. Bisk, and not having joined in the deed to Frank H. Fisk, Jr., is now entitled to her dower interest in said property. In the evidence appears a certificate of marriage between the plaintiff and Frank H. Fisk, purported to be executed 23d of October, 1908, in which certificate the ceremony purports to have been performed by one Rev. Thomas J. Howard, and which certificate appears to be in due form. The evidence of Gilbert C. Fisk, a son of Frank H. Fisk, is to the effect that upon said date this certificate was shown to him both by the plaintiff and Frank H. Fisk, and that thereupon the said parties assumed the relation of husband and wife, and thereafter'lived together as husband and wife in West Sand Lake, Albany county, until his death, and said Frank H. Fisk introduced her as his wife. Evidence was introduced by the defendant to the effect that there was no such minister as Rev. Thomas J. Howard at Hudson, Columbia county, where the ceremony is certified to have been performed; that the witnesses to the will cannot be found after diligent search; and that the'certificate was a forgery. At the beginning of the trial the plaintiff's attorney announced that he stood upon a ceremonial marriage, executed as certified in the marriage certificate referred to, and the jury has found as a fact that such a ceremonial marriage did take place. This the jury was probably authorized to find under the decision in the Hinman Case, 147 App. Div. 452, 131 N. Y. Supp. 861, affirmed 206 N. Y. 653, 99 N. E. 1108.
Upon the trial of the action the plaintiff was sworn in her own behalf. She was not allowed to swear to the performance of the marriage service, as this was objected to under section 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the same objection and an exception, however, she was allowed to swear that upon the day in question she went to Pludson, and that when she arrived at Hudson it was dark, and that they took a carriage to a house and waited until Mr. Howard came; that she was in the house probably a half hour, from which place she went by carriage to the station and again to Albany; that she met George Crum, one of the witnesses, there, and Alice Crum, his wife, and Mrs. Thomas J. Howard. This evidence I think was clearly incompetent. The only inference that is sought to be drawn is that she was there with Frank H. Fisk and as corroborating the certificate of marriage. Matter Acct. of Hiller, 99 App. Div. 81, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1087; Clift v. Moses, 112 N. Y. 427, 20 N. E. 392. As the evidence bore upon the vital question in the case, I do not think the error can be disregarded, and for the admission of this evidence the judgment and order must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. All concur, except KELLOGG, J., dissenting in opinion in which WOODWARD, J., concurs.