Brooks v. Higby
Opinion of the Court
As the draft was addressed to the drawee at a particular place in the city where he resided, and was thus accepted by him, the particular place thus designated was the place of payment, and
The respondent’s counsel proposed to supply the defect on the argument at Toa/nc by the production of a fresh certificate of the notary showing that the draft was presented at No. 114 South Main street. The rule allowing evidence of a fact imperfectly proved at the trial to be exhibited at bar, in opposition to a motion for a new trial, is, in general, confined to records or documentary evidence which proves itself, and on which no question can arise in the cause, except such as is apparent on its face. (Bank af Charleston v. Emerich, 2 Sandf., 718; Dresser v. Brooks, 3 Barb., 429; Burt v Place, 4 Wend., 591; Armstrong v. Percy, 5 id., 535 ; Ritchie v. Putnam, 13 id., 524; Hugh v. Wilson, 2 Johns., 46.) Under the statute of 1833, a notarial certificate is but presumptive evidence, and may be explained or contradicted by the party against whom it is produced. The new certificate offered in this case cannot be received' at bar to conclude the defendants; if it is to be used against them they are entitled to an opportunity to meet it at the trial.
We are also of opinion that the evidence required the submission of the question of usury to the jury.
Judgment and order should be reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.