Case Name: CONSELYEA et al. v. VAN DORN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-12-30
Citations: 114 N.Y.S. 61
Docket Number: 
Parties: CONSELYEA et al. v. VAN DORN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 114
Pages: 61–62

Head Matter:
(129 App. Div. 520.)
CONSELYEA et al. v. VAN DORN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 30, 1908.)
1. Evidence (§ 222 )—Admissions—Title to Land.
Plaintiffs in ejectment were entitled to prove statements made by defendant tending to show that he did not make claim of title to the premises in dispute.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent Dig. § 761; Dec. Dig. § 222. ]
2. Witnesses (§ 388 )—Examination—Declaeation—Time and Place.
The attention of a witness who is a party need not be called to the time and place when and where he made certain alleged statements.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1242; Dec. Dig. § 388. ]
Appeal from Trial Term, Queens County.
Action by John P. Conselyea and others against Primus Van Dorn. From a judgment for defendant, and from an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for an order striking from the judgment an additional allowance of $250 costs, and in the alternative for an order reducing the allowance to $150, they appeal. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, and MILLER, JJ.
Frederick H. Cox, for appellants.
J. C. Van Siclen, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
JENKS, J.
This appeal is from a judgment for the defendant in an action for ejectment wherein a verdict was directed at Trial Term.
I think that the plaintiffs should have been permitted to prove, if they could, any statements made by the defendant which showed or which tended to show, that he did not make claim of title to the premises in dispute. How much such statements are worth is not for us to say. In Colvin v. Burnet, 17 Wend. 568, Cowen, J., for the court, says:
"It is well known that a single lisp of acknowledgment by the defendant that he claims no title fastens a character upon his possession."
See, too, Cutting v. Burns, 57 App. Div. 185, 68 N. Y. Supp. 269; DeLancey v. Hawkins, 23 App. Div. 8,14, 49 N. Y. Supp. 469, affirmed 163 N. Y. 587, 57 N. E. 1108. I cannot infer that the learned court excluded these statements for any reason save that the objections made that they were irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial were good, but, in view of a new trial, it may be well to point out that the questions were sufficiently explicit and definite, for the rule that the attention of a witness must be called to the time and the place when and where he made the alleged statements does not obtain when he is a party. Blossom v. Barrett, 37 N. Y. 434, 97 Am. Dec. 747; Ruemer v. Clark, 121 App. Div. 231, 105 N. Y. Supp. 659. Moreover, the different hearers of the alleged statements were specified in the questions.
The judgment and order are reversed and a new trial is granted, costs to abide the event. All concur.