Robert v. Good, 36 N.Y. 103 (1867)

An allegation in a complaint that a document was executed is sufficient proof of the document’s delivery, and defects in evidence presented at trial can be cured by the submission of proper evidence during the appeal process, particularly in courts with statutorily defined procedures.

Summary

Robert sued Good on an undertaking related to an appeal in the Marine Court. The complaint alleged the execution of the undertaking, affirmance of the judgment, and failure to pay. Good’s answer primarily disputed the affirmance and non-payment. At trial, Robert offered a copy of the undertaking and the justice’s docket, which had a slight name discrepancy. An improperly certified order of affirmance was also admitted. Good moved to dismiss, arguing a lack of proof of delivery, a non-existent judgment, and insufficient evidence of affirmance. The motion was denied, and the jury found for Robert. On appeal, Robert introduced a duly certified copy of the order of affirmance. The Court of Appeals held that the initial evidentiary errors were either non-prejudicial or cured by the evidence presented on appeal.

Facts

1. Thomas Robert sued Ezekiel Donnell in the Marine Court.
2. Donnell appealed the judgment to the General Term of the Marine Court.
3. Good and Donnell executed an undertaking promising Donnell would pay costs and damages if the judgment was affirmed.
4. The judgment was affirmed by the General Term.
5. Donnell failed to pay the judgment.
6. Robert then sued Good on the undertaking in the New York Common Pleas.

Procedural History

1. Robert sued Good in the New York Common Pleas.
2. The trial court found in favor of Robert.
3. Good appealed to the General Term of the Common Pleas, which affirmed the judgment.
4. Good then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the allegation of execution in the complaint sufficiently proves delivery of the undertaking.
2. Whether the admission of a copy of the undertaking and notice was prejudicial error.
3. Whether the defect in the evidence regarding the affirmance of the judgment at trial could be cured by submitting a duly certified copy on appeal.

Holding

1. Yes, because the allegation of execution in the complaint, not being denied in the answer, sufficiently proves complete execution, including delivery.
2. No, because the proof of the undertaking was not required, as it stood admitted upon the pleadings, so the admission of the copy was not prejudicial.
3. Yes, because defects in documentary evidence can be cured by supplying the correct evidence during the appellate process.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the allegation in the complaint that the undertaking was executed by the defendants, and the absence of denial in the answer, was sufficient proof of the complete execution, including delivery. The Court found the admission of the copy of the undertaking and notice was erroneous, but not prejudicial because proof of the undertaking was unnecessary due to its admission in the pleadings. Regarding the order of affirmance, the court acknowledged that the initial copy admitted at trial was not duly certified and should have been excluded. However, this defect was cured by the duly certified copy supplied during the appeal. The Court emphasized that Marine Court proceedings are statutorily regulated and its judgments are not formally enrolled. The order of the General Term, entered in its minutes, affirming the judgment was proper evidence of the fact, and an exemplified copy or a copy certified by the clerk under the seal of the Court was equally competent and conclusive. The Court cited previous cases such as Ritchie v. Putnam, 13 Wend. 524 and Williams v. Wood, 14 Wend. 126 supporting their reasoning.