Case Name: The Litchfield Iron Company against Bennett and another
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1827-05
Citations: 7 Cow. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The Litchfield Iron Company against Bennett and another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cowen's Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 233-1–234

Head Matter:
*The Litchfield Iron Company against Bennett and another.
NEW YORK,
May, 1827.
General reFy ^‘inadmissible to prove cera of” cotthougiTseroSZe it may' be re! their acts, percers.
Assumpsit on a promissory note; tried at the Oneida circu^j October, 1826, before Williams, 0. Judge,
The defence was that the note was not to be collected on a certain condition which had been complied with; and to s^ow" ^is, a witness was offered by the defendants, to prove a conversation between one of them and P. & W., whom defendants insisted were, at the time, directors in the Litchfield Iron Company. The plaintiffs objecting that such evidence was not admissible till P. & W. were first shown to be directors, the defendants offered to prove this by general reputation. On objection, the judge rejected the evidence; but decided that the defendants might show any acts of P. & W. performed as directors; or any acts of theirs, in relation to this particular note, which had been adopted by the company; and that he would receive such acts, in connection with general reputation, as evidence of their being directors.
"Verdict for the plaintiff.
A" motion was now made, in behalf of the defendants, for a new trial, on the ground. that evidence of general reputation should have been received.
J. P. Hulbert, for the motion.
C. P. Kirkland, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per Sutherland, J.
The judge decided correctly, that the defendants could not prove by mere general reputation who were the directors. This is a matter of private right, which must be decided by the ordinary rules of evidence. (2 Phil. Ev. 205.) The directors are, in no sense, public officers. (3 John. 431.) There was no difficulty in proving who they were, by the minutes of the corporation. The plaintiffs could have been compelled to produce those minutes, or upon their *refusal to do this, the defendants would have been entitled to give secondary evidence.
The judge ruled that the defendants might give in evidence any acts of P. & W. as directors, or any acts of theirs in relation to this particular note; which had been adopted by the company; and that such acts, in connection with general reputation, would be competent evidence that they were directors. No such evidence was offered; and the other evidence was properly rejected. The motion for a new trial must be denied.
New trial denied.