Case Name: Darling and others vs. Isaac Miller
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1869-06-07
Citations: 54 Barb. 149
Docket Number: 
Parties: Darling and others vs. Isaac Miller.
Judges: 
Reporter: Barbour's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 149–152

Head Matter:
Darling and others vs. Isaac Miller.
Although a letter, written by a third person to the plaintiffs, is not competent as proof of the truth of the facts stated in it, yet it is admissible to show under what cover its contents reached the plaintiffs; precisely as an envelope would be admissible as having contained a certain letter. Clerke, P. J., dissented.
THIS action was brought to recover the proceeds of a draft, dated 16th March, 1861, made by John C. Miller on the plaintiffs, accepted by them, payable at two months, to the order of and indorsed by the defendant, discounted by a bank, in Rochester, and which proceeds the complaint alleges the defendant wrongfully appropriated and converted to his own use. The defendant put in an answer in which he admits the making of the draft, his indorsement of the same for the accommodation of the drawers and drawees, the procurement by John C. Miller of the same to be discounted, and alleges the appropriation of the proceeds by John C. Miller to his own use, and denies all other material allegations in the complaint.
The cause was tried at the blew York circuit, before a justice of this court and a jury. Leander Darling, one of the plaintiffs, was examined as. a witness in their behalf, and testified: “ I received the draft for $1952.49, (marked ■ bTo. 1,) by mail.” The witness was here shown a paper, . and testified: “ This paper last shown me is the letter in which the draft j3ame to us.” This was a letter signed by ¿he defendant) dated Clyde, March 25, 1861,. and addressed to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ counsel offered the letter in evidence, to which evidence the defendant’s counsel objected, on the grounds:
“ First. The letter is hearsay; the statements contained in it are the declarations, merely, of a person not a party to the action, and his declarations are not competent proof of the facts stated in the letter.
Second. The statements contained in the letter offered, that the accompanying draft was the avails of a $2000 draft, are incompetent and improper evidence to disprove the fact that the $1952.49 was, in fact, part of the avails of the $3000 draft in question.”
The court overruled the objections so made, and allowed the plaintiffs to read said letter in evidence; and to each of the said rulings the defendant’s counsel excepted; and said letter was thereupon received by the court and read as evidence. The other facts sufficiently appear in the dissenting opinion of Clerks, P. J.
H. B. Stanton, for the plaintiffs.
Thomas Nelson, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Cardozo, J.
I think the letter was competent, not as proof of the truth of the facts stated in it, but to show under what cover its contents reached the plaintiffs—precisely as an envelope would be admissible as having contained a certain letter.
I think the judgment should be affirmed.
Geo. G. Barnard, J., concurred.