p. 73The plaintiffs’ contention from this testimony was, that the bank' book given to Josephine Cardinal, if 'any, by the deceased, and exhibited by her to the witness O’Connor, was not the same one produced in court, in which the balance of the deposits named are the subject of controversy between the parties. The defendant Cardinal claimed, on the other hand, that the bank book produced was the one that was in the tin box, and that it was the only one there, and that it was the same one given to her and produced in evidence upon the trial, and that the witness O’Connor was mistaken as to * the entries he testified to as having seen in the book exhibited to him.
The referee found that the said John "O’Connor being the owner of a deposit of money, amounting to $310, in the Ogdensburg Bank of Ogdensburg, and having in his possession the bank book issued tp him by said bank, did then and there give, transfer and deliver said bank book to the defendant Josephine Cardinal, with the intent to give, transfer and deliver to her the money so - on deposit, and with the intention of vesting the title to the same in her, and as conclusion of law he found that, by the gift, delivery and transfer made to the said Josephine Cardinal, she became vested with' the title to the sum of $310 standing in the name of John O’Connor, and that the defendant was entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint with costs.
From the-judgment entered upon the report of the referee the plaintiffs appeal to this court.
Charles McC. Myers and D. B. Lucey, for the appellants.
Geo. E. Van Kennen, for the respondent.
The defendant Cardinal’s claim to the money in question rests upon -an alleged transaction between herself and the deceased, O’Comior; that transaction consisted in the giving of a bank book kept in a tin box.. In testifying that she had seen the bank book exhibited to her in such tin box, and that it was the only one in the box, she indirectly testified that that was the bank book given to her by the deceased. She could not- testify to that directly, and cannot be permitted’ to do so indirectly. (Grey v. Grey, 47 N. Y. 552 .)
p. 74It was in .effect testimony concerning the alleged transaction between herself and the .deceased, and consequently obnoxious to section 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
(Gregory v.
Fichtner, 38 N. Y. St. Repr. 192 ;
Viall v.
Leavens, 39 Hun, 291 .)
The evidence is material, the error in receiving it cannot be disregarded, and the judgment.must be reversed.
All concurred, except Smith, J., dissenting.
Judgment reversed, refereé discharged, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. ■'