Case Name: LONDON REALTY CO. v. DE LACEY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-29
Citations: 117 N.Y.S. 899
Docket Number: 
Parties: LONDON REALTY CO. v. DE LACEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 117
Pages: 899–900

Head Matter:
LONDON REALTY CO. v. DE LACEY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 29, 1909.)
Trial ($ 377 )—Order of Proof—Exclusion of Evidence.
Where the issue was whether the transaction involved was usurious,, and plaintiff’s attorney, at whose office the transaction was consummated, asked, before the case was closed, permission to testify in behalf of plaintiff, the refusal to permit him to testify was reversible error.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Dec." Dig." § 377. ]
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of 'Manhattan, Ninth District.
Action by the London Realty Company against Thomas De Lacey.. From a judgment for defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEABURY, JJ.
Morrison & Schiff, for appellant.
Andrew F. Van Thun, Jr., for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It seems almost conclusive, from reading the testimony of the defendant, that the loan made to the defendant was founded in usury. Before the case was closed, however, the plaintiff's attorney, at whose office the transaction was consummated, requested to be allowed to testify in behalf of the plaintiff. This right was denied him by the trial justice, and this constitutes reversible error. Evidence might have been adduced which would have convinced the trial justice-of the legality of the loan, and this the plaintiff had the right to prove, if he could.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.