General
David Tower against Nathan Wilson
3 Cai. 174·New York Supreme Court of Judicature·1805·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
David Tower against Nathan Wilson.
ALBANY,
August, 1805.
If a party serving a notice has Moí kept a copy, he may prove its contents by parol evidence* *
THE only point was, whether a party who has served a notice, without keeping a copy of it, might give parol evi« dence of its contents ?
[MAJORITY — Per curiam.]
Per curiam.
There was a notice served on the defendant to produce a Jt. fa. on the trial, or that the plaintiff would proVe it by parol. It appears that no copy of this notice was kepi. We think it might be proved by an affidavit of its contents. In this instance there is no other way to establish it, and the defendant has it in his power, by producing the original, to correct mistakes. In Tid'd’s forms, notices are proved, by affidavits of the substance of their contents,