Case Name: Jackson, ex dem. Van Slyck and others, against Son
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1804-08
Citations: 2 Cai. 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jackson, ex dem. Van Slyck and others, against Son.
Judges: 
Reporter: Caines' Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 178–178

Head Matter:
Jackson, ex dem. Van Slyck and others, against Son.
When a defendant cross-examines a plaintiff’s witness, he makes him his own. Therefore, parol testimony of a deed or will, disclosed by such witness, in the possession of the plaintiff, cannot be received without notice to produce it.
Lsr ejectment on a motion for a new trial. It appeared that at nisiprms\ the plaintiff claimed by descent. On the cross-examination of one of his witnesses by the defendant, it came out that the ancestor had made a will, of which the judge, vho heard the cause, admitted parol testimony, without any notice to produce it having been given.
The old rule in Westminster-hall, and which by a very learned judge has been called '‘the sensible one,” was, that of an instrument coming from the opposite side, after notice to produce it, proof from the party who called for it was not required ; the very circumstance of its being with, tho other side, being prima facie evidence of due execution, and from its being in such custody the probable ignorance, in the party noticing, of the names of the witnesses. Rex v. Middlezoy, 2 D. & E. 41. But in Gordon v. Secretan, 8 East, 548, it was ruled that a party calling for a deed from the opposite side, must prove it in the same manner as if it had come out of his own possession ; and the practice extends not only to sealed, but unsealed instruments. Wetherston v. Edgington, 2 Camp. 24 A notice to produce papers, extends to the time'of trial, and is not confined to the circuit or sittings for which the cause iias been noticed for trial. Jackson v. Sherman, 6 Johns. Rep. 19.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A new trial must be awarded with costs to abide the event. "When the defendant cross-examined, be made tbe witness as much bis own as if be bad bimself called him. He, therefore, could not introduce through Him. any proof, which would not have been legal, had the witness been originally produced on his behalf. In Jackson, ex dem. Van Rensselaer v. Clark, April term, 1801, the same point was ruled. The judge, therefore, was clearly wrong in admitting parol proof of a will, as the party did not show any notice on the opposite side to produce it.
New trial.
PROMOTIONS.
Kent, J. Chief Justice, vice Lewis, elected Governor. Daniel D. Tompkins, Counsellor at Law, to the office of Judge.
The English courts adopt another principle; they consider a witness called by the plaintiff as his witness, even after a cross-examinatioD, being dismissed, and called back by the defendant. Dickinson v. Shee, 4 Esp. Rep. 67.