Butterfield v. Radde — 41 N.Y. Super. Ct. 181

Majority

p. 181

EDWIN L. BUTTERFIELD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v . WILLIAM RADDE, Defendant and Appellant.^[1] ,^[2]

Headnote

I. EVIDENCE, INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A VERDICT.

1. Stockholder, presumption of defendant’s being, from his being a Trustee.

(a) Not sufficient to warrant a verdict against him, when there is enough proof to overcome it.

1. What proof will overcome it. See note.

p. 182

Before Monell, Ch. J., and Sedgwick, J.

Decided April 3, 1876.

Appeal from judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial, a re-argument having been ordered.

p. 183

The facts appear in the report of the motion for re-argument, and the opinion of Chief Justice Mokell thereon, reported in vol. 40, p. 169.

p. 184

S. D. Seward, attorney, and D. C. Calvin, of counsel for appellant, and C. M. Earl, attorney, and of counsel for respondent.

The chief justice of the court of appeals has made a memorandum, that the judgment in Mallery v. Radde was reversed, upon the ground, that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was a stockholder. The defect of evidence, in that case, exists in the two present cases. For that reason, the judgments in these cases should be reversed, with costs to appellant to abide event, and a new trial ordered.