
    RAVID v. KARO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    February 18, 1910.)
    Payment (§ 5)—Persons to Whom may be Made.
    A defense of payment is not sustained by proof of payment to a third person, where it does not appear who he was, or what relation he sustained to the parties.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Payment, Cent. Dig. § 7; Dec. Dig. § 5.]
    Lehman, J., dissenting.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    Action by Israel Ravid against David Karo. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and BIJUR, JJ.
    Herman Weiss, for appellant. «
    Emanuel Klein (Charles H. Herbst, of counsel), for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to daté, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   SEAB.URY, J.

This is a simple action for goods sold and delivered. The only serious question presented upon this appeal is whether the defendant sustained his plea of payment. The' defendant offered testimony tending, to establish that he had paid the amount due to one Berman. Who Berman was, or what relation he sustained to the parties, does not appear. Under these circumstances the learned court below properly held that the defendant had not sustained his defense of payment, and awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

BIJUR, J., concurs.

LEHMAN, J.

I dissent, on the ground that defendant showed by testimony of previous. transaction that Berman was held out as having authority to collect bills.  