Case Name: Tuthill v. Hussey et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-11-07
Citations: 7 N.Y.S. 547
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tuthill v. Hussey et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 7
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
Tuthill v. Hussey et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
November 7, 1889.)
Aepeal—Review—Weight op Evidence.
Where a defendant’s testimony on a material point is contradicted by a number of witnesses, and the verdict is for plaintiff, an order denying a motion for a new trial will not be disturbed.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by Benjamin H. Tuthill against George W. Hussey and John N. Harriman on a promissory note. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Daniels and Barrett, JJ.
E. G. Duvall, Jr., (John R. Reid, of counsel,) for appellants. Warren W. Foster, for respondent.

Opinion:
Barrett, J.
The sole question in this case was whether the words " with interest, " were written in the note sued upon before or after its execution, indorsement, and delivery. A number of witnesses testified that these words were written in the note before it was executed, while the defendants testified to the contrary. It is apparent, therefore, that the question was purely one of fact. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, and it was fully supported by abundant testimony; indeed, after reading all the testimony carefully, I feel bound to say, by the weight of evidence. There was not an exception in the case, and the question of fact was fairly and thoroughly presented to the jury. It is difficult to believe that this appeal was taken with any hope of success. It is plainly without merit. The judgment and order denying a. new trial should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.