The following excerpt is from Ambrosius v. Ambrosius, 239 F. 473 (2nd Cir. 1917):
In this respect the case differs from Govin v. De Miranda, 140 N.Y. 474, 35 N.E. 626, on which the complainant so much relies. In it there was no evidence of any relationship between the deceased and the plaintiffs, so that the court held that, in view of his express statement that the securities belonged to them it was bound to assume that they came to them by purchase or gift from some one. If there had been any evidence that the bonds had been purchased by the decedent with his own money, the decision would unquestionably have been different. This was evidently the opinion of the General Term upon the appeal from a judgment directed by the court in favor of the plaintiffs in a second suit to recover the interest paid on the bonds in question during the decedent's lifetime. Govin v. De Miranda, 79 Hun, 329, 29 N.Y.Supp. 347. In that case the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the ground that the ownership of the bonds had become res judicata in the first action, and evidence that the decedent bought the bonds with his own money was not admissible in the second action to contradict that adjudication.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.