Case Name: PETER BARTON, Respondent, v. GEORGE SCRAMLING and BURT MATTICE, as Executors, etc., of SAMUEL S. BURNSIDE, Deceased, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1884-01
Citations: 38 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 467
Docket Number: 
Parties: PETER BARTON, Respondent, v. GEORGE SCRAMLING and BURT MATTICE, as Executors, etc., of SAMUEL S. BURNSIDE, Deceased, Appellants.
Judges: Boardman, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 38
Pages: 467–470

Head Matter:
PETER BARTON, Respondent, v. GEORGE SCRAMLING and BURT MATTICE, as Executors, etc., of SAMUEL S. BURNSIDE, Deceased, Appellants.
Evidence — when a witness is interested, in the event of the action— Oode of Qivil Procedure, sea. 829.
One Farnbam, a deputy of tbe plaintiff, received an execution against one Bueldey and levied thereunder upon certain property belonging to a Mrs. Buckley, for the taking of which a judgment was recovered by Mrs. Buckley against the plaintiff. This action was brought to recover the amount of the said judgment, against the executors of the attorney who issued the execution,upon a parol indemnity against any loss which might be occasioned by the levy, which he was alleged to have given to the plaintiff. Upon the trial Farnham was called as a witness for the plaintiff to show that the deceased attorney gave the alleged indemnity.
Held, that he was interested in the event of the action, and that his testimony was inadmissible under section 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Potter, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff, entered upon tbe report of a referee.
Burr Mattice, for tbe appellant.
Samuel H. Bowen, for tbe respondent.

Opinion:
Learned, P. J.:
Tbe plaintiff was sheriff; Earnham bis deputy. Tbe plaintiff through Earnham received an execution against one Buckley, which be, through Earnham, enforced against personal property of Mrs. Buckley. For this Mrs. Buckley sued and recovered against plaintiff. The plaintiff's action seeks to recover against the executors of one Burnside now deceased, the attorney in that execution, upon a parol agreement made by Burnside with Earnham to indemnify him against loss by reason of levying on that personal property.
Farnham is called as a witness; and the objection is taken that he is incompetent under section 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He is not a party to this present action. Is he " interested in the event ? "
Earnham is called to show that the deceased Burnside indemnified the sheriff against certain wrongful acts which Earnham committed. If the defendant is liable it is because the acts were wrongful; if wrongful, Farnham is liable to the plaintiff and is directly interested in having the plaintiff recover against the indemnitor.
True the judgment recovered against the plaintiff may not be evidence against Farnham if he were not notified to defend. But the fact of his liability to the sheriff could be proved by other means than that judgment.
If this evidence is inadmissible, I do not think the case can be allowed to stand on the other proof.
Judgment reversed, new trial granted, referee discharged, costs to abide event.
Boardman, J., concurred.