Case Name: HENRY ROSINOFF AND E. CHARLES ALTSHUL, RESPONDENTS, v. FANNIE K. ALTSHUL, ADMINISTRATRIX OF VICTOR I. ALTSHUL, DECEASED. APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1924-01-25
Citations: 99 N.J.L. 519
Docket Number: 
Parties: HENRY ROSINOFF AND E. CHARLES ALTSHUL, RESPONDENTS, v. FANNIE K. ALTSHUL, ADMINISTRATRIX OF VICTOR I. ALTSHUL, DECEASED. APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 519–520

Head Matter:
HENRY ROSINOFF AND E. CHARLES ALTSHUL, RESPONDENTS, v. FANNIE K. ALTSHUL, ADMINISTRATRIX OF VICTOR I. ALTSHUL, DECEASED. APPELLANT.
Submitted December 10, 1923
Decided January 25, 1924.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following par curiam was filed:
“This is a suit on a promissory note for $10,000 given by Victor I. Altshul under a trade name. It hears date of June 1st, 1918, payable six months after date to the order of E. C. Altshul, and is endorsed by him and also' assigned by a formal assignment after maturity to the plaintiff Rosinoff.
“Victor I. Altshul died, and the defendant, Fannie K. Altshul, his widow, was appointed administratrix. She contests the claim of the plaintiff on the note, and at her instance E. C. Altshul was brought in as a party plaintiff. The note was proved and offered in evidence. There is no serious controversy as to the validity in its inception. An attempt was made to prove payment. This proof consisted of some statements made b}T E. C. Altshul, which were supposed to indicate that his brother owed him $5,000 instead of $10,000, and also proof that his brother had turned over to him seven notes, six being for $2,000 each and one for $1,000.
“Some reliance was placed by the defendant on the alleged suspicious conduct of E. C. Altshul after his brother’s death, but this evidence was too hazy and uncertain to have any weight. The only question was whether there was proof of such connection between the seven notes and the $10,000 note that the case ought to go to the jury. We think not. The presumption is in favor of the holder of such a note, and while Rosinoff’s title can be no better than that of E. C. Altshul, we think the evidence on the part of the defendant was so meagre and uncertain that it cannot justify any inference of payment. It is an attempt to make conjecture do the work of facts.
“We think, therefore, the trial judge was right in directing a verdict for the plaintiffs. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.”
For the appellant, J. Raymond Tiffany.
For the respondents, Gross & Gross and Jid his Lichtenstein.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Heppenheimer, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskirk, Clark, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.