Case Name: Dency J. Young et al., Ex'rs, App'lts, v. Hallock F. Luce, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-12-12
Citations: 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 253
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dency J. Young et al., Ex'rs, App'lts, v. Hallock F. Luce, Resp't.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 50
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
Dency J. Young et al., Ex'rs, App'lts, v. Hallock F. Luce, Resp't.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 12, 1892.)
Evidence—Books op account.
The books of a parly can be proven against a deceased person. The rule as to the proof of books of account is not changed by § 829 of the Code.
Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon report of referee.
Payne & Benjamin, for app’lts;
George F. Stackpole, for resp’t

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The action is brought to recover a balance due upon two notes held by Noah N. Young in his lifetime against the defendant. The answer avers payment of the notes in full. The evidence showed that the defendant was a butcher, and had sold meat and other things to the deceased for some years before his death, and had a mutual account with the deceased. Proof was given that the account was, in large measure, in the handwriting of defendant's son, and that the defendant kept honest books of account. A great portion of the items on the bill were delivered by the defendant's son at the residence of deceased. The books of account were properly received in evidence. They were proven under the old rule in Vosburgh v. Thayer, 12 Johns., 461. The rule is not changed by § 829 of the Code.
The books of a party can be proven against a deceased person. McGoldrick v. Traphagen, 88 N. Y., 834; West v. Van Tuyl, 119 id., 620; 28 St. Rep., 549.
The proof of payment of the notes was sufficient without the small balance due upon the books. The indorsements on the notes, with the payment of $250 by check made September 20, 1883, not indorsed, would overpay the notes.
The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concur.