Chapin-Owen Co. v. Yeoman
Chapin-Owen Company, Inc. v. Mathew Emmett Yeoman
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The record does not disclose whether the trial court accepted or rejected defendant’s testimony. If it accepted the testimony, then as matter of law the court erred in its decision. If the court rejected it, error was also done for the testimony was not contradicted or impeached in any respect. It was positive and direct, not incredible on its face and was corroborated. It was, therefore, the duty of the court to give credit to it. (Hull v. Littauer, 162 N. Y. 569 ; Lomer v. Meeker, 25 id. 361; Powers v. Wilson, 203 App. Div. 232 .)
The motion for reargument is denied, with ten dollars costs, and the motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied.
Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.
Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.