(^armii ICam ^rijnnl Hibtatg
Cornell University Library
KF 8935.U55
A treatise on the law of evidence, with a
3 1924 020 112 979
The original of tiiis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924020112979
A TREATISE
ON THK
LAW OF EVIDENCE
WITH A
DISCUSSION OF THE PRINCIPLES AND RULES
WHICH GOVERN ITS PRESENTATION,
RECEPTION AND EXCLUSION,
EXAMDfATION OF WITNESSES IX COURT.
H. C. UNDERBILL, LL'. B.
CHICAGO:
T. H. FLOOD AND COMPANY,
Law Book Pdblishees.
1894.
Entered aceordTngto Act of Congress, in the year 1894, by
H. C. UNDERHILL,
in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
STATE JOURNAL PBINTING COMPANY,
Printers and Stereotypkhs,
madison, wis.
TO
MY FRIEND AND FOEMEE INSTEUCTOE,
C. G. TIEDEMAIS", Esq.,
PEOFBSSOE OF LAW IN THE UNIVERSITy OF THE CITY OF NEW TOEK,
THIS VOLUME IS EESPBCTFULLY DEDICATED,
AS A
TRIBUTE OF THE AUTHOk's APPEECIATION OF HIS LEARNING
AND ABILITY AS A SCHOLAR, AND HIS INTEG-
RITY AND KINDLINESS AS A MAN.
PREFACE.
The primary purpose of the author in the preparation of
this work is to present in a concise and clear narrative a rea-
sonably comprehensive statement of the rules and principles
of the existing law of evidence, for the use of students of law
pursuing their studies in law schools or elsewhere. Though
this is the main object of the work, the author is not wholly
without hopes that it may also be of some service to the pro-
fession ; and with this end in view a full citation of the most
recent and most important cases has been made, which, with
a carefully prepared topical and analytical index, will, it is
believed, facilitate the convenient use of the book in many, if
not in all, the exigencies of practice.
In order to secure conciseness it was found necessary to
omit the detailed discussion of many things which, though
interesting to the historical investigator or antiquarian, are
obsolete and useless to the student. The author has not
hesitated, however, when the occasion seemed to demand it,
to discuss dead or obsolete law if the discussion is essential
to a proper elucidation or understanding of the law of the
present.
The evolution of the law of evidence from a mass of arbi-
trary and inadequate rules, based upon the conservatism and
prejudice which could see nothing but good in the past, into
a well-reasoned and flexible system of jurisprudence adapted
to the demands of the spirit of a progressive age, may be
attributedto a variety of causes. The application of the prin-
ciple of logic to the law of evidence, resulting from the labors
VI PEEFACE. •
of Benthara and his followers, doubtless had raiich to do in
exploding the theory propounded by some of the earliest writ-
ers, that it was not only useless but absolutely harmful to seek
to find a reason for any of the rules of evidence. So, too, coin-
cident with the process of rehabilitation and evolution which
has been going on in the law itself as the result of its develop-
ment along logical lines and the operation of public opinion
acting through a progressive and enlightened judiciary, may
be considered the express statutory changes which have been
made and some of which are embodied in the codes of pro-
cedure which exist in many of the states.
Other influences as well have been at work. The spread
of popular education, the vast increase in and thfe new uses
which have been found for wealth, the progress of scientific
investigation, the application of newly-discovered scientific
principles to every day-afl^airs, and the extensive use of ma-
chinery for purposes of transportation and manufacture,
have all combined to bring about great changes in the law
and particularly in the law of evidence. -
The result of all this is, that while the law of evidence has
been rendered- more logical and better adapted to the de-
mands of a progressive social state, many questions have been
cast' into the back-ground which Miy years ago were of the
utmost importance. On the other hand, other subjects and
questions have been brought forward for the consideration
of the student or attorney, and for discussion in the forum.
Accordingly it will be found that, while some matters
which are treated by the older authorities at some length
receive only cursory attention in this volume, leaving the
reader to pursue his investigations of the details regarding
them in the authorities cited, other departments of the law of
evidence — as, for example, expert and opinion evidence, res
gestm, relevancy, the statutory incompetency of interested
witnesses to testify to personal transactions with a decedent,
PEEFACE. Yll
privileged coraraunications to doctors, attorneys and clergy-
men, the inspection of persons and things by the jury, com-
parison of handwriting, the use of pleadings as evidence, stip-
ulations, objections to evidence, etc., — have received the full
consideration their modern importance demands.
In citing the most recent cases the author has endeavored
to give the citation from the state report as well as that from
the National Reporter s^^stem. In many cases where it was
not practicable to give the state report citation in the notes,
it will be found appended to the case in its proper place in
the table of cases. Where it is not given in the table of
cases, the reader may feel assured that the case has not
been reported by the state reporter up to the time that this
work goes to press.
Trusting that his work may prove of value in lightening
the labors of practitioner and student, and that though either
may not find in these pages a solution for every possible or
conceivable problem with which he may be confronted, yet,
believing that what is found will neither mislead nor con-
fuse, the author presents his work to the indulgence of the
public.
H. C. Undeehill.
59 Reid Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y.,
September 10, 1894.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
Early development of law ....
Evidence defined . , 4 , . .
The basis of belief
Direct and eiroutostantial evidence distinguished
Nature and effect of circumstantial evidence .
Reasonable doubt and the Weight of evidence .
CHAPTER 1
RELEVANCY AND PROVINCE OF JUDGE AND JURY.
Relevancy of evidence § 7
Collateral facts, how far admissible 8
Evidence of intention, motive, good faith, etc., when relevant . . 9
Collateral facts bearing on character .<.... 10
Province of judge and jury 11
Blended questions of law and fact . . f 12
Preliminary facts bearing on admissibility 13
CHAPTER n.
SUBSTANCE OP THE ISSUE.
Mattel' of substance and of essential description . . . . § 18
Formal allegations " 19
Allegations of value, quantity, time, place, etc. .... 20
Proof of contracts 21
Variance in the proof of sealed instruments 22
Substance Of the issue in criminal trials 23
Variance — Amendments . . 24
CHAPTER lit
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EVIDENOS
Primary and secondaiy evidence distinguished
Instruments required by law to be in writing .
Disputed writings
Contracts and other transactions actually reduced to writing
Collateral writings
30
31
32
33
34
X TABLE or CONTENTS.
Exceptions in the case of records and appointments to offlce . ' . § 35
Exceptions in the case of evidence of general results ... 36
Admissions as primary evidence _^ • 37
Phqtographs as primary evidence 88
Exhibition of articles in court 39
CHAPTER IV.
HEARSAY.
Definition — Grounds for its rejection
Statements to be proved as facts . .
Expressions of bodily or mental feeling .
Pedigree — Oral and written declarations
Declarations constituting a part of the res gesta
Requisites . -
Must be illustrative and connected with main transaction
Declarations must be contemporaneous or nearly so
Entries as part of the res gestce and made by third persons
Entries against interest and entries which are part of the res
distinguished ......
A party's own books as evidence
Indorsements as part of tbe res gestce
50
51
53
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
CHAPTER V.
ADMISSIONS.
Definition and character § 65
Privity as affecting admissions 66
Parties whose admission is received — Joint interest, when required 67
Admissions of partners — Their effect when made after dissolution 68
Declarations of conspirators 69
Assignor and assignee ......... 70
Wife's admission — When binding on husband .... 71
Admissions of inhabitants of towns ...... 72
Admissions of strangers to the record — Principal and surety — Ad-
missions of real parties 73
The declarations of agents ........ 73a
Admissions by attorneys of record 74
Offers of compromise — Admissions under duress against interest . 75
Admissions in pleadings 76
Admissions by reference 77
Admissions from conduct and assumed character .... 78
Self-serving declarations 79
Mode of proof — Nature of the admissions 80
Weight and suiEciency of admissions 81
Admissions, when conclusive — Mistake ....... 83
Estoppel defined 83
Intention of party estopped 84
Admissions and communications sent and received by telephone . 85
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
XI
CHAPTER VI.
CONFESSIONS.
Definition and classification ....
To be regarded with caution ....
Voluntary character of confessions ... .
Confessions, -when voluntary — Inducements offered
Confessions need not be spontaneous
Preliminary examination ....
Extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated
Conclusive character of judicial confessions
Persons oflering inducements
Confessions of persons other than defendant .
Confessions of conspirators ....
Confessions of treason
88a
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
CHAPTER VIL
DYINa DECLARATIONS.
Definition
Sense of approaching death ....
In what cases admissible
Form of the declaration
100
101
103
103
CHAPTER VIIL
ANCIENT DOCUMENTS.
Definition .......
Documents must come from proper custody .
Execution need not be proved
Extent of corroboration required
105
106
107
108
CHAPTER IX
GENERAL REPUTATION.
Public and general reputation distinguished — Adequate knowledge
of declarant § 110
Identity of declarant Ill
Death of declarant 113
Date of the declaration ante litem motam . . . . 'US
Evidence of reputation in the case of private rights . . . 114
Traditionary evidence regarding private boundaries . . . 115
Documents showing general i-eputation 116
' CHAPTER X
STRANGERS' DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST.
Declarations of third persons and other declarations distinguished
Declarations must be against interest
The interest of the declarant
117
118
119
Xii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The death of the declarant § 119ns
The knowledge of the declarant 119&
Statements of predecessor against interest, when evidence in behalf
of successor 119c
CHAPTER 21.
WITNESSES ABSENT OK DISQUALIFIED,
Testimony of missing witnesses § ISO
Witness need not be deceased 121
Witnesses who have become sick, decrepit or insane ... 183
Cross-examination at former trial requisite — Identity of parties . 123
Precise language of witness, how far requisite .... 124
CHAPTER Xn.
PRIVATE WRITINGS.
Definition and classification § 125
Production of writing — Proof of contents by secondary evidence . 126
Writings obtained by fraud or deceit — Decoy letters . . . 127
Spoliation and alteration distinguished — Effect of material altera-
tions . , 128
Alterations — Presumptions and burden of proof to explain . . 129
Private writings lost or destroyed ....... 130
Handwriting defined — Signature by mark 131
Production of writings, when necessary 132
Proof by admissions of party 183
When proof of handwriting may be dispensed with — Acknowledg-
ments 134
Who may take acknowledgments 135
The certificate 136
Impeaching the certificate 137
Proof by subscribing witnesses 138
Proof by witnesses acquainted with party's handwriting . . 139
Mode of examining witnesses as to handwriting .... 139a
Comparison of handwriting 140
To what expert may give evidence 141
Proof of exhibits in equity 142
CHAPTER XIIL
JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS.
Inspection of public records § 142a
Proof of executive and legislative acts and writing? . . . 142b
Proof of public non-judicial records 142c
Proof of foreign laws 143
Proof of municipal ordinances ~ . ~ . 143n
Effect of public documents as evidence 144
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
XIU
Historical and scientific publications — Almanacs and newspapers . § 145
Proof of judicial records — General rule 146
Proof of records of courts of equity and of inferior courts . . 147
Proof of records of courts of other states 148
Proof of foreign judgments 149
Records of surrogate courts 150
Proof of returns on writs 150a
The effect of judicial records as evidence 1506
The effect of judgments on those in privity with the parties , . 151
Judgment must have been final and on the merits .... 153
Judgments conclusive only as to material facts in issue . . . 153
Identityof cause of action required 154
Persons affected by judgments in rem and actions fixing personal
status 155
Criminal judgments 156
Proof of judgments as facts and their use as proving ulterior facts
distinguished 157
Validity and effect of foreign judgments 158
Judgments of sister states 159
Judgments in bar need not be pleaded 160
CHAPTER XIV.
PEIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.
Foundation of the doctrine ....
Husband and wife, when competent witnesses
Statutory legislation — Confidential communications
Confidential communications beWeen husband and wife
Communications to attorneys ....
Character and time of the communications
Attornej' employed by both parties .
Permanent character of the privilege — Its waiver
Privileges as to documents . . . .
What communications are within the privilege
Privilege of police, judicial and executive officials
Privilege as relating to jurors ....
Confidential communications to clergymen
Communications to physicians
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
173
173
174
175
176
177
178
CHAPTER XV.
EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
Definition § 185
Matter of common knowledge — Opinions of non-experts, when ad-
missible . . • • 186
Expei:t evidence, when admissible 187
Competency and examination of experts 188
Cross-examination of experts — Use of scientific books . . . 189
The weight and credibility of expert and opinion evidence . . 190
Xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Compensation of experts §
Physiciansasexperts — Cause of death
Evidence of medical experts to show character of disease and blood-
stains—Expert evidence as to autopsies and malpractice . . 193
Non-expert evidence upon a person's physical condition ... 194
Chemists as experts— Poisons ^^^
Expert evidence where sexual crimes have been committed — Abor-
tion ...■■•••••"*
Expert and non-expert evidence upon insanity ....
Mechanical experts ....••••••
Expert evidence as to value
Underwriters as experts
Experiments in and out of court
Physical examination of the party by experts
CHAPTER XVL
PAROL OB EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AS RELATED TO WHITINGS.
196
197
198
199
200
201
302
205
206
Parol evidence, when inadmissible
Interpretation and construction of writings
Rule applies between parties only 207
Invalidity of writings — Evidence to vary or explain or show real
consideration ........•■' "0°
Incomplete and collateral writings .209
Parol evidence to connect and explain contemporaneous writings . 210
Receipts ^^■'■
Independent parol contracts and conditions precedent . . . 218
To establish implied, resulting or constructive trusts ... 213
Discharge, modification or extension of contract may be shown . 214:
To rebut presumptions 215
To show usage .......... 216
To explain technical terms 217
Abbreviations 318
The relations of the parties 219
To ascertain or explain subject-matter 220
Ambiguities defined and distinguished — Parol evidence to explain 221
Parol evidence as applicable to wills 222
Parol evidence to show absolute deed a mortgage and in suits for
specific performance and reformation or cancellation . . 323
CHAPTER XVIL
PRESUMPTIONS.
Definition and classification . § 324
Presumptions of law and fact distinguished 325
Presumptions of fact — Accomplices 226
Presumptions from adverse possession and prescription . . . 227
Presumptions from lapse of time 228
Presumptions from possession , . 229
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
XV
Presumptions from the usual course of trade .
Lawfulness — Continuity — Sanity — Insanity
Presumptions as to jurisdiction
Presumptions of life, death and suirvivorship .
Legitimacy — Innocence — Malice .
230
231
232
238
234
CHAPTER XVIIL >
JUDICIAL NOTIGK
Judicial notice § 236
Matter of common knowledge 237
Historical facts 238
Geographical facts 239
Political facts — Elections 240
Scientific facts 241
Common and statutory law — Municipal ordinances and local and
foreign laws 242
Foreign nations, seals and acts 243
Terms of court, records, rules of practice and judicial proceedings . 244
CHAPTER XIX
BURDEN 01" PROOF AND EIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE.
Burden of proof defined § 247
Burden of proof in special proceedings 248
Burden of proof in criminal trials 249
Proof of negative — Facts best known to party alleging . . . 250
When plaintiff may open and close 251
When defendant may open and close ......' 252
Right to open and close in special proceedings .... 253
Right to open and close, when discretionary ..... 254
CHAPTER XX
STATUTE OF FEiUDS.
Origin and nature of the statute § 261
Agreements relating to interests in land ...... 263
Partition of real property 263
Trusts in real and personal estate 364
Surrender or assignment of leases 265
Contracts required to be in writing 266
Articles of partnership 267
Form and character of the writing 368
Wills required to be evidenced in writing 269
Agreements not within the statute of frauds which must be evi-
denced by writings ^ • . 370-
XVI
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXL
ATTENDANCE OP WITNESSES.
The attendance of witnesses at private arbitrations .
The subpoena — Fees of witnesses
Fees in criminal cases ....•••
Subpoena duces tecum
Time and mode of serving the subpoena ....
Recognizance to secure presence of a witness .
Obstructing attendance of witnesses ....
Changing venue for convenience of witnesses .
Failure of witnesses to attend — Continuance, when granted
Continuance in criminal trials ......
Non-attendance of witness — When a contempt
Privilege of witnesses from service of civil process .
Privilege of witnesses from civil arrest ....
Duration of the privilege from arrest
Attendance of witnesses in custody
Attendance of witnesses before legislative bodies
§275
276
277
278
279
280
281
281a
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
CHAPTER XXn.
COMPETENCY OP WITNESSES.
Classes of persons incompetent § 300
Parties incompetent as witnesses at common law .... 301
Testimony of party admissible when his connection with action no
longer exists .......... 302
Wl;at constitutes interest in the event 303
Exceptions to the common-law rule — The answer as evidence for
the defendant in equity 304
Competency of parties as witnesses in equity — The employment and
effect of a bill of discovery 305
Defendant in criminal trial — His competency as a witness . . 306
Statutory competency of parties as witnesses 307
Statutory incompetency of interested persons to testify as to trans-
actions with deceased or insane persons 308
) What are transaction with decedents 309
Persons interested — Their statutory incompetency .... 310
Incompetency of parties to negotiable instruments to impeach them, 311
Competency of counsel as witnesses 312
Competency of judges as witnesses 313
Incompetency of arbitrators as witnesses in an action on the award 314
Definition and form of oath and affirmation 315
Incompetency because of a lack of religious belief .... 316
Incompetency of insane persons as witnesses 317
Deaf mutes as witnesses 318
Children as witnesses 319
TABLE OF COXTENTS. XVH
Witnesses rendered incompetent by conviction of infamous crimes —
The effect of pardon § 330
Statutory regulation of the competency of -witnesses convicted of
crime 321
Statutes construed 333
Accomplices 333
Corroboration of accomplices . . • . : , ' , ~ . "^ . ' 334
CHAPTER XXIIL
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
Order for witnesses to withdraw from court-room . . . . § 330
Direct examination and cross-examination distinguished . . 331
Eefusal to testify, when a contempt — Employment of interpreter . 333
Mode of conducting direct examination 333
<3uestions put by the judge or by members of the jury . . . 334
Leading questions — When allowable on direct examination . . 335
Responsiveness of answers 336
Witness may refresh his memory by referring to a memorandum or
writing • . . . 337
Character of the writing used to refresh memory of the witness . 338
Cross-examination — Its purpose and value 339
Power of cross-examination — Its extent 340
Redirect examination 341
Recalling witnesses 343
Receiving evidence out of court 343
Taking the view by the jury 344
" Real evidence " — Physical examination by the jury in court —
Identification . 345
Eight of the defendant in a criminal trial to confront the witnesses
against him 346
The accused as a witness in a criminal prosecution .... 346a
CHAPTER XXIV.
IMPEACHMENT OP WITNESSES.
Party cannot impeach his own witness § 347
Exceptions to the rule that a party vouches for his own witnesses . 348
How the adverse witness may be impeached — General reputation
for veracity, etc. ' . • • . 349
Impeachment by proving contrary statements or silence of witness
on a former occasion 350
Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus 351
Evidence of general reputation of an impeached witness . . . 353
Privileges of witnesses — Questions disclosing pecuniary liability . 353
Questions tending to disgrace the witness 354
Questions calculated to expose the witness to a criminal charge . 354a
Bias and prejudice of the witness 354b
XVIU
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXV.
AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS.
Affidavits and depositions defined and distinguished . . . § 355
Parties to affidavits .•-• • ^56
Formal requisites of affidavits ^ • • 357
Language of the affidavit • 358
Definition and character of depositions 359
Mode of procuring depositions . . . . ' • • . • 360
Statutes construed — The certificate 361
Objections to depositions 363
Use of depositions as evidence • . 368
Equitable bills to perpetuate testimony , 364
CHAPTER XXVL
RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE — NTJMBEB OF WITNESSES.
Mode of oflEering and objecting to evidence ....
Waiver of objections to evidence — Necessity for repeating ob]eO'
tions
Motions to strike out evidence ....
The improper admission of evidence, when immaterial
The improper exclusion of evidence, when immaterial
Nature and use of stipulations as regards evidence .
Demurrer to evidence
Surprise
Rebutting evidence — Nature and use of
Order of proof — Evidence offered by the party after he rests
Materiality and sufficiency of newly-discovered evidence
Diligence of party offering new evidence must be shown
Newly-discovered evidence must not be cumulative or impeaching
merely .......
Writ of error — When employed at common law
The powers of appellate tribunals in relation to the evidence re-
ceived in the trial court
Limitations on the number of witnesses
Number of witnesses necessary in trials for perjury
Number of witnesses in trials for treason . .
Compelling the calling of the witnesses .
Positive and negative testimony — Number of witnesses
the weight of evidence .....
The discretionary power of the court — Judicial discretion defined
and considered
as affecting
366
367
368
369
370
371
373
373
374
875
376
877
378
879
380
381
383
383
885
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Aaron v. State (31 Ga. 167), 9.
Abbot V. Coleman (33 Kan. 350), 133,
140.
Abbot V. Heath (Wis., 1893, U N. W.
Eep. 574), 52.
Abbot V. Plumbe (1 Doug. 216), 138.
Abbott V. Abbott (51 Me. 581), 320.
Abbott V. Petersburgh Granite
Quarry Co. (62 Hun, 623), 373.
Abbott V. Ross (62 Me. 194), 311.
Abele v. Brewster (58 Hun, 605), 31.
Abell V. Pa. M. Ins. Co. (18 W. Va.
400), 333, 237.
Abell V. Eadcliffe (13 Johns. 297), 246.
Abercrombie v. Littman (77 Tex.
589), 148.
Aberl v. Van Gelder (33 N. T. 513),
115.
Abrams v. Seale (44 Ala. 297), 83.
Accola V. Railroad Co. (70 Iowa, 185),
233, 387.
Achilles V. Achilles (137 111. 589; 38
N. E. Rep. 45), 303.
Adae v. Zangs (41 Iowa, 586), 339.
Adam v. Bald (1 Green, 188), 157.
Adams v. Barnes (17 Mass. 365), 151.
Adams v. Betts (1 Watts, . 435), 146.
Adams v. Brown (16 Ohio St, 419), 84.
Adams v. Davidson (10 N. T. 309), 69.
Adams v.-Eames (107 Mass. 275), 80.
Adams v. Edwards (115 Pa. St. 211),
809.
Adams v. Eichenberger (Ark,, 1893,
18 S. W. Rep.' 853), 80.
Adams v. Frye (5 Mete. 109), 215.
Adams v. Harrington (114 Ind. 16),
239.
Adams v. Humphreys (54 Ga. 396),
73a.
Adams v. Jones (39 Ga. 508), 232,
233.
Adams v. Main (3 Ind. App. 332),
186, 326, 233, 334.
Adams v. Medsker (25 W. Va. 138),
, 135.
Adams v. Morgan (150 Mass, 148),
308.
Adams v. Morrison (113 N. Y. 153),
309.
Adams v. Norris (23 How., U. S.,
353), 243.
Adams v. Pearson (7 Pick., Mass,,
341), 153.
Adams v. People (63 N. Y. 631), 188.
Adams v. Power (53 Miss. 828), 267.
Adams v. State (28 Fla, 511), 249, 341.
Adams v. State (35 Ohio St. 584), 114,
Adams v. Swansea (116 Mass, 591),
115.
Adams v. Way (33 Conn. 419), 148.
Adams v. Wheeler (97 Mass, 67), 348.
Addis V. Van Buskirk (4 Zabr. 218),
22.
Adler v. Friedman (16 Cal. 138), 214.
Aedford v. MoCormac (90 N. C. 151),
357.
iEtna Ins. Co. 7. Deming (123 Ind.
415 ; 34 N. E. Rep. 86, 375), 178.
Agnew V. Brooklyn City E. E. Co.
(5 N, Y. S. 756), 317.
Ahern v. Telephone Co. (Oreg., 1893,
33 Pac. Rep. 403), 18.
Aikin v. Weckerly (19 Mich. 483),
331, 269.
XX
TABLE OF OASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Ake V. State (31 Tex. 476), 97.
Akersv. Kirk (Ga., 1894, 18 S. E.
Eep. 366), 76.
Alabama Coal Co. v. Pitts (Ala.,
1893, 13 S. Rep. 35), 187.
Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Arnold
(Ala.,2S. Rep. 887), 50.
Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill (93
Ala. 514), 190, 203, 283, 333.
Alabama Land Co. v. Kyle (Ala.,
1893, 13 S. Rep. 43), 331.
Alaska, The (33 Fed. Rep. 107), 198.
Albertsen v. Robeson (1 Ball., U. S.,
9), 53.
Albertsen v. Terry (109 N. C. 8 ; 13
S. E. Rep. 713), 11.
Albert! v. N. Y., L. E. & N. E. E.
Co. (118 N. Y. 77), 192.
Albia V. O'Hara (64 Iowa, 397), 143a.
Albin V. State (63 Ind. 598), 6.
Albright v. Lapp (26 Pa. St. 101),
332.
Albritten v. Huntsville (60 Ala. 48fi),
243.
Alcock, In re (12 Eng. L. & Eq. 354,
355), 166.
Alcorn v. Morgan (77 Ind. 184), 311.
Alcorn v. Railroad Co. (108 Mo. 81),
366, 369.
^Icott V. Strong (9 Cush., Mass., 323),
68.
Alderman v. Bell (9 Cal. 315), 244.
Alderman v. People (4 Mich. 411),
323.
Alderton^ v. Wright (81 Mich. 244),
340.
Aldrich v. Aldrich (135 Mass. 153),
230.
Aldrich v. Jessiman (8 N. H. 516),
77.
Aldridge v. Midland, etc. Co. (78
Mo. 559), 73a.
Alexander v. Burnham (18 Wis. 199),
244.
Alexander v. Caldwell (55 Ala. 517),
66, 70.
Alexander v. Com. (105 Pa. St. 1)
10.
Alexander v. Handley (11 S. Eep.
390), 79.
Alexander v. Harris (4 Cranch, 399),
31.
Alexander v. Jonquil (71 111, 866),
188.
Alexander v. McNear (28 Fed. Eep,
403), 77, 314.
Alexander v. Mt. Sterling (71 111.
366), 188.
Alexander v. Penn. etc. Co. (48 Ohio
St. 633), 143.
Alexander v. Thompson (43 Minn,
498; 44 N. W, Rep. 534), 7.
Alford V. State (31 Tex. Crim. Eep.
899), 333.
Alfred v. State (37 Miss. 296), 89.
Alger V. Andrews (47 Vt. 338), 70.
Alkire v. Kahla (138 III. 496), 138.
Allegheny v. Nelson (35 Pa. St. 333),
218, 243.
Allan V. Allan (15 Ves. 134), 364.
Allen V. Bond (112 Ind. 523), 885.
Allen V. Carpenter (66 Tex. 138), 199.
Allen V. Chouteau (102 Mo. 309),
308.
Allen V. Clark (66 Hun, N. Y., 628),
Allen V.
Rep.
Allen V.
312.
Allen V.
150a,
Allen V.
Allen V.
Allen V.
303),
Allen V.
Allen V.
480),
Allen V.
Allen V.
437,
Allen V.
Allen V.
306.
Allen V.
Com. (Ky., 1888, 9 S. W.
. 703), 330.
Furbish (4 Gray, Mass., 504),
Gray (11 Cow., N. Y., 95),
Hawks (13 Pick. 70), 309.
Hodge (31 Vt. 436), 83.
Hunter (6 McLean, U. S.,
208. ^
Kemp (29 Iowa, 452), 323.
Kiilinger (8 Wall., U. S.,
77.
Lenoir (53 Miss. 831), 136.
Haddock (11 Moore P. C.
454), 310.
Mass (37 Mo. 354), 131.
O'Donnell (28 Fed. Rep. 17),
Root (39 Tex. 58.9), 173.
TABLE OF OASES.
XXI
Beferences are to sections.
Allen V. Scharringhausen (8 Mo. App.
229), 223, 247.
Allen V. State (3 Humph., Tenn.,
367), 139.
Allen V. State (10 Ohio St. 287), 806,
823.
Allen V. Thaxter-(1 Blackf., Ind.,
899), 148.
Allen V. Watson (2 Hill, S. C, 319),
143.
Aller V. State (55 Ala. 16), 241.
Ailing V. Brazee (27 111. App. 595),
60.
Ailing V. Wenzel (37 111. App. 516;
24 N. E. Rep. 551), 60.
Allison V. State (42 lad. 854), 230.
AUport V. Meek (4 0. & P. 267), 140.
'Alnian v. Owens (81 Ala. 167), 233,
249.
Alniy v. Simonson (53 Hun, 535),
243.
Alston, In re (1892, Prob. 142), 233.
Alt V. California Fig Syrup Co. (19
Nev. 18), 199.
Altmeyer v. Caulfield (37 W. Va.
847), 858.
Altschul V. San Francisco, etc. Co.
(43 Cal. 171), 223.
Ambler v. Whipple (139 111. 311),
159.
Amer. Bank Note Co. v. Man. Ry.
Co. (66 Hun, 627; 20 N. Y. S.
819), 371.
Amer. En. Tile Co, v. Reich (13 N.
Y. S. 937), 187.
Amer. F. Co. v. United States (2
Pet. 358, 365), 69, 97.
Amer. L. Ins. Co. v. Rosenagle (77
Pa. St. 507), 143.
Amer. Mortg. Co. v. Boyd (92 Ala.
139; 9S. Rep. 166), 151.
Amer. Ins. Co. v. Canter (1 Pet. 511),
243.
Amer. Oak L. Co. v. Standard, etc.
Co. (Utah, 1893, 33 Pac. Rep.
246), 381.
Amfer. Steamship Co. v. Landreth
(102 Pa. St. 131), 73a.
Amer. S. Co. v. Thurber (131 N. Y.
655; 24 N. E. Rep. 1129), 205.
Amer. Tr. Co. v, Rosenagle (77 Pa.
St. 516), 53.
Ames v. Merriam (9 Wend. 498),
355.
Amey v. Long (9 East, 478), 173.
Ammons v. Dwyer (78 Tex. 639 ; 15
S. W. Rep. 1049), 108.
Amory v. Fellows (5 Mass. 225), 333.
Amos V. State (Ala., 1893, 11 S. Rep.
424), 69.
Anderson v. Anderson (23 Tex. 639),
242.
Anderson v. Armstead (69 111. 452-
454), 84,
Anderson v. Dunn (6 Wheat. 204),
288.
Anderson v. Monroe (55 Fed. Rep.
596), 349.
Anderson v. O'Donnell (29 S. C. 855),
243.
Anderson v. Parker (6 Cal. 197), 53.
Anderson v. Roleson (2 Bay, 495),
130.
Anderson v. State (25 Neb. 550), 89.
Anderson V. State (104 Ind. 867; 6
N. E. Rep. 63), 381.
Andrews v. Brewster (124 N. Y. 438),
212.
Andrews v. Flack (88 Ala. 294; 6 S.
Rep. 907), 148.
Andrews V. Hayden (88 Ky. 455; 11
^ S. W. Rep. 438), 140.
Andrews v. Mut. R. L. F. Ass'n (34
Fed. Rep. 870), 178.
Andrews v. Parker (48 Tex. 94), 360.
Andrews v. Solomon (1 Pet. C. C.
356), 169.
Angell V. Angell (1 S. & S. 83), 863.
Angell V. Hester (64 Mo. 142), 308.
Angell V. Hill (18 N. Y. S. 834), 869.
Angell V. Loomis (Mich., 1898, 55
N. W. Rep. 1008), 384.
Angell V. Rosenburg (12 Mich. 241),
114.
Angle V. Bilby(25Neb. 595; 41 N.
W, Rep. 897), 74.
xxu
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Anglo-Am. P. & P. Co. v. Cannon
(31 Fed. Eep. 313), 30, 33.
Angus V. Foster (42 111. App. 19),
380.
Anheuser-Basch v. Hutraacher (127
111. 657 ; 21 N. E. Rep. 626), 33.
Anix V, Miller (54 Iowa, 541), 344.
Ankersmit v. Bluxome (48 Hun, 1),
375.
Ankerstein v. Clarke (4 T. R. 616),
22.
Anonymous (Ala., 1890, 7 S. Eep.
100), 303.
Anshicks v. State (6 Tex. App. 537),
343.
Anspach v. Bast (53 Pa. St. 356),
305.
Anthony v. Beal (HI Mo. 637; 20 S.
W. Eep. 326), 130.
Anthony v. German Am. Ins. Co.
(48 Mo. App. 65), 200.
Anthony v, Smith (4 Bosw., N. Y.,'
508), 193.
Applegate v. Lexington, etc. Mining
Co. (117 U. S. 263), 106, 108.
AppoUon, The (9 Wheat. 374), 389,
Arbuckle v. Templeton (65 Vt. 205 ;
25 Atl. Rep. 1095), 173.
Archer v. Helm (69 Miss. 730; 11
S. Rep. 8), 263.
Archer v. Insurance Co. (31 Fed. Rep.
6601, 276,
Archer v. N. Y., N. H. etc. Co. (106
N. Y. 603), 38.
Archibald v. McLaurin (31 Can. S. C.
R. 588), 11.
Archibald y. State (123 Ind. 132), 101.
Arcia v. State (28 Tex. App. 198), 23.
Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson (63 Pa. St.
146), 185.
Arent v. Squire (1 Daly, 347), 231.
AriQiond v. Green Bay, etc. (35 Wis.
41), 229.
Arkansas v, Bower (30 D. C. 29), 149.
Armour v. Spalding (Colo., 1890, 23
Pac. Rep. 789), 223.
Armsted v. State (32 Tex. App. 51),
69.
Armstrong v. Ackley (71 Iowa, 76 r
33 N. W. Rep. 180), 50, 193, 193.
Armstrong v. Boylan (4 N. J. L. 76),.
355.
Armstrong v. Fargo (8 Hun, 175),
139.
Armstrong v. St. Louis (69 Mo. 809),.
305.
Armstrong v. State (30 Fla. 170 ; 11
S. Rep. 618), 197, 331, 249.
Armstrong v. Thurston (11 Md. 148),.
139a.
Arndt v. Harshaw (53 Wis. 269), 71.
Arnfield v. Bate (3 M. & S. 173), 19..
Arnold v. Arnold (30 Iowa, 273), 214.
Arnold v. Arnold (13 Vt. 43, 363),.
316.
Arnold v. Cheseborough (46 Fed. Rep<
700), 35.
Arnold v. Frazier (5 Strobh., S. C, 3),
148.
Arnold v. State (81 Wis. 278), 334.
Arnson v. Spawn (S. D., 1893, 49 N.
W. Rep. 1066), 115.
Arrison v. Harmstead (2 Barr, 191),
128.
Arthur v. Broadnax (3 Ala. 875), 114.
Arthur v. Gordon (67 Ga. 320), 349.
Arthur v. James (38 Pa. St. 236), 76.
Arthur v. Roberts (60 Barb,, N. Y.,
580), 217, 231.
Artz v. Chicago R. R. Co. (44 Iowa,
284), 847.
Asbach v. Chicago, etc. Co. (Iowa,
1892, 53 N. W. Rep. 90), 76, 855.
Ashing V. Miles (16 Ind. 329), 254.
Ashley v. Martin (50 Ala. 537), 338.
Ashlock V. Linder (50 III. 159), 75.
Ashman v. Flint, etc. Co. (90 Mich.
567 ; 51 N. W. Eep. 645), 18. "
Ashton V. Shepherd (120 Ind. 69 ; 33
N. E. Rep. 98), 30.
Ashworth v. Kittredge (13 Cush.
193), 145.
Assignees of Desbrow v. Farrow (3
Rich., S. C, 383), 139.
Association v, Cronin (4 Allen, 141),
188.
TABLE OF CASES.
xxm
Eeferenoes are to eeotions.
Aston v. Insurance Co. (7 Cow.
202), 217.
Atcheson v. Huebner (90 Mich, 64§ ;
51 N. W. Rep. 634), 140.
Atchison v. Bartholovv (4 Kan. 134),
355.
Atchison V. Everett (Cowp. 389, 390),
315.
Atchison, etc, Co, v, Betts (10 Colo.
431), 230.
Atchison, etc. Co. v, Brassfield
<K:an., 1893, 33 Pac. Rep. 814), 193.
Atchison, etc. Co, v. Howard (C.
C. A, 329), 232,
Atchison, T. & S, F. R. Co, v. Thul
(29 Kan. 466), 303.
Atchison R. Co. v. Miller (18 Pac.
Rep. 486; 39 Kan. 419), 188.
Atherton v. Atkins (139 Mass, 61),
366.
Atherton v. Beard (3 T. R, 610), 140,
Atkins V. State (69 Ga. 595), 51.
Atkins V. Tompkins (155 Mass, 356),
305.
Atkins V, Tregold (3 B. & C. 23), 67.
Atkinson v. Cox (54 Ark. 444; 16 S.
W. Rep. 124), 20, 24.
Atkinson v. Roch Printing Co. (43
Hun, 167), 199.
Atkinson v. Saltman (Ind., 1893, 39
N. E, Rep. 435), 355.
Atkinson v. Truesdell (137 N. Y. 330 ;
27 N. E. Rep. 844), 216.
Atlanta v, Sohmelzer (89 Ga. 609),
317.
Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Holcomb (88 Gfa.
9), 326.
Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Manning (3 Col.
224), 139.
Attaway v. State (31 Tex. Cr, Rep.
475), 383.
Attorney-General v. Abbott (154
Mass. 433; 28 N. E. Rep. 346),
116.
Attorney-General v. Briant (15 L. J.
Exch, 265), 175,
-Attorney-General v. Hitchcock (1
Ex. 103), 354.
Attorney-General v, Ray (3 Hare,
518), 363,
Attorney-General v. Skinner's Co.
(8 Sim. 377), 387.
Atwood V, Harrison (5 J, J. Marsh. ,
Ky., 329), 304,
Atwood V, Scott (99 Mass. 177), 376,
Atwood V. Welton (7 Conn, 66), 316.
Auerbach v. Peetsoh (18 N. Y, S,
453), 244, 349, 253,
Augur V. Whittier (117 Mass, 451),
33.
Augusta V. Hafers (61 Ga. 48), 8.
Augusta V. Windsor (19 Me. 317), 58.
Augustine Kobbe, The (37 Fed. Rep,
696), 205,
Aultman v, Ritter (81 Wis, 395; 51
N, W. Rep. 569), 169, 379,
Aurora v, Cobb (21 Ind, 493), 249.
Ausman v. Veal (10 Ind. 355), 241,
Austee v. Nelmes (1 H. & M. 325),
320.
Austin V. Andrews (77 Cal. 98; 16
Pac, Rep. 546), 115,
Austin T, Chittenden (33 Vt. 58),
73a.
Austin V, Day (17 Pick., Mass., 208),
150a,
Austin V. Holland (69 N. Y, 571,
576), 230,
Austin V. State (14 Ark. 555), 339.
Austin V. Thompson (45 N. H. 113),
127.
Austine v. Treat (39 N. W. Rep.
749; 71 Mich, 561), 126.
Austrian v. Springer (94 Mich. 343),
316.
Auzeriaz v. Neglee (74 Cal. 60), 317.
Averell v. Barber (63 Hun, 630), 388;
Averell v. Sec. Nat. Bank (19 D. c'
346), 151.
Averell v. Smith (17 Wall. 95), 158.
Avery v. Bowman (39 N, H. 593),
150a.
Avery v. Fitzgerald (7 S. W. Rep. 6 ;
94 Mo. 307), 333.
Avery v. Mattice (9 N. Y. S. 166), 334.
Avery v. Moore (133 111, 74), 343,
XXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferences are to sections.
Avery v. Railroad Oo. (131 N. Y. 31 ;
24 N. E. Rep. 20), 186.
Avery v. Starbuck (137 N. Y. 675; 37
N. E. Rep. 1080), 32.
Avilla V. Nash (117 Mass. 318), 13.
Ayer v. Getty (46 Hun, 287), 73.
Ayers v. Harris"(77 Tex. 108), 38a.
Ayers v. Metcalfe (39 111. 307), 80.
Ayers v. Watson (137 U. S. 584), 36,
116.
Ayres v. State (21 Tex. lApp. 399),
336.
Ayres v; "Weed (16 Conn. 391), 331.
Ayreyv. Davenport (3 N. R. 474),
146.
Babb V. Aldrich (45 Kan. 318), 360.
Babcock v. People (15 Hun, N. Y.,
347), 315.
Babcock v. People (18 Colo. 515), 350.
Babcock v. Utter (1 Abb. App. 27),
231.
Baccio V. People (41 N. Y. 265), 53.
Bachelder v. Nutting (16 N. H. 361),
130.
Backdahl v. Lodge (46 Minn. 61), 53.
Bacon v. Bacon (33 Wis. 147), 360.
Bacon v. Hanna (63 Hun, 625), 50.
Bacon v. Railroad Co. (131 U. S. 258),
134.
Bacon v. State (32 Fla. 51), 334.
Bacon v. Williams (13 Gray, 525,
537), 139a, 140.
Badcock v. Steadman (1 Root, Conn. ,
87), 213.
Badder v. Kiefer (91 Mich. 611 ; 52
N. W. Rep. 60), 10, 332.
Baeder v. Jennings (40 Fed. Rep.
199), 138.
Badger v. Badger (88 N. Y. 336), 309.
Badger v. Jones (13 Pick., Mass., 371),
311.
Bagley v. Francis (14 Mass. 453), 143.
Bagley v. McMickle (9 Cal. 430), 236.
Bagley & Sewall Co. v. Saranac R.
P. Co. (135 N. Y. 636), 213.
Bailey v. Bailey (36 Mich. 185), 333.
Bailey v. Chicago M. etc. Co. (S. D,,
1893, 54 N. W. Rep. 596), 366.
Bailey v. Cornwell (66 Mich. 107),
308.
Bailey v. Martin (119 Ind. 103), 148.
Bailey v. Taylor (11 Conn. 531), 128,
129.
Bailey v. Trumbull (31 Conn. 581), 8.
Baillie v. Jackson (17 Eng. Ii. & Eq.
131), 143.
Baily v. Baily (35 Ala. 687), 269.
Baily v. Kalamazoo (40 Mich. 251),
237.
Baily v. O'Bannon (28 Mo. App. 39),
76.
Baily v. Pardridge (134 111. 188), 79.
Baily v. State (Neb., 1894, 55 N. W.
Rep. 341), 35.
Baily v. State (30 Neb. 855 ; 47 N. W.
Rep. 308), 143a.
Baily v. Sundberg (49 Fed. Rep. 583),
155.
Bain v. State (61 Ala. 75), 53.
Bain v. Welsh (85 Me. 108), 136.
Baird, In re (47 Hun, 77), 67.
Baird v. Daily (68 N. Y. 547), 198.
Baird v. Evans (58 Ga. 350), 135.
Baker v. Chapline (12 Iowa, 204),
233.
Baker v. Charlton (7 Cush. 581), 83.
Baker v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 17 S. W.
Rep. 635), 9, 348.
Baker v. Davis (32 N. H. 37), 150a.
Baker v. Denning (8 A. & E. 94),
131.
Baker v. Haines (6 Whart., Pa., 284),
140.
Baker v. Hall (158 Mass. 361; 33 N.
E. Rep. 613), 330.
Baker v. Haskell (47 N.H. 479), 326.
Baker v. Magnon (9 111. App. 655),
143a.
Baker v. Malony (Tex., 4 S. W. Rep.
469), 56.
Baker v. Mygatt (14 Iowa, 131), 140,
344.
Baker V. Scofield (58 Ga. 183), 143a.
TABLE OF CASES.
XXV
Beferences are to sections.
Baker v. State (30 Fla. 41), 188.
Baker v. Stockpole (9 Cow., N. Y.,
430), 69.
Baker v. Thompson (89 Ga. 486), 313.
Baker v. Witten (Okl., 1893, 39 Pao.
Rep. 491). 71.
Baker's Appeal (107 Pa. St. 381), 310.
Balbo V. People (19 Hun, 434), 91.
Balch V. Smith (4 "Wash. St. 497), 331.
Baldridge v. Faust (38 Neb. 359;' 44
N. W. Rep. 110), 146.
Baldridge v. Penland (68 Tex. 441 ;
4 S. W. Rep. 565), 58, 60.
Baldridge, etc. Co. v. Calrett (75
Tex. 638), 333.
Baldwin v. Burrows (95 Ind. 81), 308.
Baldwin v. Chicago, etc. Co. (50
Iowa, 680), 198.
Baldwin v. Hale (17 Johns. 373), 146.
Baldwin v. Parker (99 Mass. 79), 168.
Baldwin v. Shannon (48 N. J. L. 96),
220. '
Baldwin v. State (13 Mo. 233), 231.
Baldwin V. Walker (94 Ala. 314; 10
S. Rep. 891), 334.
Balfour v. Chew (Martin, 517), 148.
Ball V. Fagg (67 Mo. 481), 143a.
Ballard v. Manuf. Co. (15 N. Y. S.
405), 73a.
Ballard v. N. Y., L. E. etc. Co. (136
Pa. St. 141), 198.
Ballard t. State (31 Fla. 366; 12 S.
Rep. 865), 306.
Ballentine v. White (77 Pa. St. 20),
141.
Ballinger v. Davis (29 Iowa, 513),
131.
Ballinger v. Elliott (73 N. C. 596),
286.
riallock V. Hooper (146 U. S. 363), 76.
Ballon V. Ballon (110 N. Y. 403), 151.
Balls V. Smith (3 M. & G. 350), 358.
Baltimore v. Lib. Tump. Co. (66 Md.
419; 7 Atl. Rep. 805), 186, 188.
Baltimore, etc. R. Co. v. Polly (14
Gratt., Va., 447, 470), 844.
Baltimore & Ohio Turnp. Co. v. Cas-
sell (66 Md. 419), 194.
Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Eambo
(59 Fed. Rep. 75), 194.
Bamford v. Iron Co. (33 Fed. Rep,
677), 868, 370.
Banbury V. Sheerin (S. D., 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 733), 134.
Banbury Peerage Case (1 Sim. &
Stu. 153), 334.
Banert v. Day (3 Wash. C. C. 243), 58.
Banfleldv. Whipple (10 Allen, Mass.,
29), 9.
Bank v. Anderson (38 S. C. 148), 74.
Bank v. Bellis (10 Cush. 378), 226.
Bank v. Board (Ky., 1885, 5 S. W.
Rep. 735, 739, 743), 333.
Bank v. Bollong (34 Neb. 835), 339.
Bank v. Cooper (137 U. S. 473), 309.
Bank v. Curran (10 Ark. 143), 344.
Bank v. Daudridge (12 Wheat. 69),
233.
Bank v. Darragh (1 Hun, 113), 73.
Bank v. De Bernales (1 C. & P. 569),
80.
Bank v. Evans (33 Iowa, 302), 147.
Bank v. Fitzhugh (1 Har. & G., Md.,
289), 243.
Bank v. Gerry (5 Pet. 99-113), 304.
Bank v. Gidrot (19 Ga. 421), 73a.
Bank v. Gilmore (N. D., 1893, 54 N.
W. Rep. 1033), 377.
Bank v. Good (44 Mo. App. 139), 138.
Bank v. Harding (1 Wright, Ohio,
430). 147.
Bank v. Holls (11 Gray, Mass., 530),
141.
Bankv. Houghton (41 Mich. 709),
140.
Bank v. Hull (7 Mo. 273), 811.
Bank v. Inman (3i N. E. Rep. 31 ;
183 Ind. 287), 367.
Bank v. Jacobs (1 P. & W., Pa.,
161, 170), 139a.
Bank v. Kennedy (17 Wall. 19), 56.
Bank v. Kortright (32 Wend., N. Y.,
348), 123.
Bank v. Lewis (8 Pick. 113), 152.
Bank v. Lierman (5 Neb. 247), 189a,
140.
XXVI
TABLE or CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Bank V. Machir (18 W. Va. 371),
339.
Bank v. McManigle (69 Pa. St. 156),
230.
Bank v. Marsh (46 Vt. 443), 139.
Bank v. Meagher (33 Ala. 623), 337.
Bank v. Mersereau (3 Barb. Ch. 538),
826.
Bank y. Mitchell (15 Conn. 306), 58.
Bank v. Mudgett (44 N. Y. 514), 139a.
Bank v. Natchez (3 Rob., La., 393),
83.
Bank v. Nias (16 Q. B. 717), 158.
Bank v. Nickell (34 Mo. App. 295),
128.
Bank v. Radtke (Iowa, 1893, 54 N.
W. Rep. 435), 135.
Bank v. Rutland (33 Vt. 414), 108.
Bank v. Wenzel (151 Pa. St. 143),
139.
Bank v. Whitehill (16 S. & R., Pa.,
89), 58.
Bank v. Young (36 Iowa, 44), 141.
Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland (33
Vt. 414), 108.
Bank of Monroe v. Gifford (79 Iowa,
309), 130.
Bank of Monroe v. Gifford (70 Iowa,
580), 73.
Bank of Utica v. Mersereau (3 Barb.
Oh., N. Y., 528), 174.
Banks v. Gruben (87 Pa. St. 468),
343.
Banks v. Kingsley (84 Me. Ill), 333.
Bannon v. Aultman (80 Wis. 307),
314.
Barbee v. Barbee (109 N. C. 299), 208.
Barber, In re (W. N., 1879, p. 141),
210.
Barber v. Merriam (11 Allen, Mass.,
333), 193, 193.
Barber v. Terrell (54 Ga. 146), 138.
Barbour v. Melendy (88 Va. 595),
382.
Barbour v. Watts (3 A. K. Marsh.
290), 148.
Barclay v. Hopkins (59 Ga. 563),
209.
Barclay v. Pursley (110 Pa. St. 18),
313.
Barcus v. State (49 Miss. 17), 284.
Bardwell v. Dewitt (43 Minn. 468),
73.
Bardwell v. Ziegler (3 Wash. St. 34),
216.
Bareda v. Silsby (21 How., U. S.,
146), 207.
Barhyte v. Summers (68 Mich. 841),
384.
Barhyte v. Vack (12 Wend., N. Y.,
145), 157.
Barker v. Bushnell (75 111. 220), 75,
76.
Barker v. Coit (1 Root, Conn., 225),
377.
Barker v. Coleman (35 Ala. 321), 194.
Barker V. Haskell (9 Gush., Mass.,
218), 60.
Barker v. Hebbard (81 Mich. 637),
120.
Barker v. Kuhn (38 Iowa, 395), 174.
Barker v. McFerran (26 Pa. St. 211),
128, 150.
Barker v. Prentiss (6 Mass. 430), 213.
Barker V. State (13 'Tex. 373), 333,
337.
Barker v. State (48 Ind. 163), 334.
Barley v. Barley (7 Jones, 44), 210.
Barley v. Woods (17 N. H. 365), 133.
Barlow v. Buckingham (68 Iowa,
169), 214.
Barlow v. State (77 Ga. 448), 23.
Barnard v. Gall (43 La. Ann. 959),
240.
Barnard v. Henry (25 Vt. 289), 60.
Barnard v. Heydrick (49 Barb. 68),
131.
Barnard v. Macy (11 Ind. 536), 77.
Barnes v, Barnes (66 Me. 286), 138.
Barnes v. Bost. etc. Co. (130 Mass.
388), 203.
Barnes v. City (89 Ala. 602), 143a.
Barnes v. Denslow (9 N. Y. S. 53),
373.
Barnes v. Dow (59 Vt. 580), 60, 309.
Barnes v. Ingalls (39 Ala. 193), 199.
TABLE OF OASES.
xxvu
Beferences are to sections.
Barnes v. Mawson (1 M. & S. 77), 116.
Barnes v. Reilly (81 Mich. 374; 45 N.
W. Rep. 1016), 833.
Barnes v. State (Tex., 1889, 11 S. W.
Rep. 679), 306.
Bamett V. Barnett (83 Va. 504), 305.
Barnsdale v, Lowe (3 Russ. & My.
143), 363.
Barndm v. Barnum (42 Md. 251), 362.
Baron de Bodes v. Reginaim (10 Jur.
317), 143.
Barr v. Auburn (89 111. 361), 143a.
Barr v. Gratz (4 Wheat. 313, 231),
106, 107, 108, 157.
Barre v. Reading City Pass. Ry. Co.
, (36 Atl. Rep. 99; 155 Pa. St. 170),
186.
Barrelle v. Penn. Ry. Co. (4 N. Y. S.
127), 194.
Barrett v. Copeland (18 Vt. 67), 150a.
Barrett v, Dowris (9 R. I. 446), 148.
Barrett v. Railroad Co. (45 N. Y.
638), 74.
Barringer v. Bank (14 S. & R. 405),
139.
Barron v. Barron (24 Vt. 375), 246.
Barrow v. Rhinelander(lJohns. Ch.,
N. Y., 559), 142.
Barry v. Coville (7 N. Y. S. 86), 157,
172.
Barry v. Raison (1 Kernan, N. Y.,
463), 307.
Barry v. Stevens (69 Me. 390), 168.
Bartholomew v. People (104 111. 601),
833.
Bartholomew v. Stephens (8 C. & P.
728), 136.
Bartlett v. Cleavenger (35 W. Va.
719), 250.
Bartlett v. Delpratt (4 Mass. 702), 73.
Bartlett v. Gale (4 Paige, N. Y., 503),
304.
Bartlett v. Leo (38 Ga. 491), 205.
Bartlett v. Marshall (3 Bibb, Ky.,
467), 70.
Barton v. Anderson (104 Ind. 578),
318.
Barton v. Govan (116 N. Y. 658), 188.
0 .
Barton v. Lynch (69 Hun, 1), 233.
Bassett v. Bassett (55 Me. 135), 128.
Bassett v. Cunningham (9 Gratt. 684),
79.
Bassett v. Shares (63 Conn. 39; 27
Atl. Rep. 481), 334.
Bassett v. Shepardson (53 Mich. 3),
309.
Bass Fur. Co. v. Glasscock (82 Ala.
452), 186.
Batcheldor v. Emery (20 N. H. 165),
73o.
Bates V. Ableman (13 Wis. 644), 70.
Bates V. Barber (4 Cush. 107), 346.
Bates V. Farelet (89 Mo. 121-249), 308.
Bates V. Holladay (81 Mo. App. 162),
346.
Bates V. Hurd (65 Me. 180), 246.
Bates V. People (8 111. 644), 189o.
Bates V. Preble (U. S., 1894, 18 S. Ct.
377), 60.
Bates V. Sabin (64 Vt. 511), 60.
Bates V. United States (10 Fed. Rep.
93), 127.
Batesen v. Hartsink (4 Esp. 43), 173.
Bathgate v. Haskin (59 N. Y. 533), 74.
Bathrick v. Detroit, etc. Co. (50 Mich.
379, 653), 194, 349.
Baugher v. Merryman (33 Md. 185),
333.
Baum V. Reay (96 Cal. 463 ; 29 Pac.
Rep. 117), 60.
Baumbaoh v. Gessler (82 Wis. 331),
387.
Baumgardner v. Mfg. Co. (Minn.,
1893, 53 N. W. Rep. 964), 338.
Baur T. Beal (14 Colo. 383 ; 23 Pac.
Rep. 345), 147, 334.
Bausch V. IngersoU (61 Hun, 627), 34.
Baxter v.. Doe (142 Mass. 558), 8.
Baxter v. Graham (5 Watts, 418),
203.
Baylis v. Chubb (16 Gratt. 384), 242.
Bayly v. Bryant (24 Pick., Mass., 198),
73.
Bays V. Trulson (Oreg., 1894, 35 Pac.
Rep. 26), 205.
Beach v, Elmira (58 Kan. 606), 154.
XXVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
Heferences are to sections.
Beach v. Pennell (50 Me. 387), 308.
Beaks v. Da Cunla (13 N. Y. S. 551 ;
58 Hun, 609; 37 N. E. Rep.
251), 8.
Beal V. Stevens (72 Cal. 451), 376.
Beale v. Brown (6 Mackey, 574), 76,
167.
Beale v. Thompson (6 Cranch, 70),
360.
Beall V. Beck (3 Har. & McC. 243),
73.
Beall V. Poole (37 Md. 345), 33.
Beall V. Shattuck (53 Miss. 353), 150a.
Beaman v. Russell (30 Yt. 305), 128,
129.
Beaman v, Whitney (22 Me. 413),
134, 135.
Bean v. Loryea (81 Cal. 51), 243.
Beard v. First Nat. Bank (41 Minn.
153), 366.
Beard v. First Nat. Bank (39 Minn.
547;, 309.
Bearden v. State (44 Ark. 331), 315.
Beards v. Frame (85 Cal. 134), 147.
Beardsley V, Am. Miss. See. (45 Conn.
327), 323.
Beardsley v. Crane (Minn., 1893, 54
N. W. Rep. 740), 320. '
Beardsley v. Hall (36 Conn. 270), 69.
Beardsley v. Knight (10 Vt. 185),
228.
Beardstown v. Virginia, etc. (76 111.
34), 250.
Beasley v. Bradley (2 Swan, Tenn.,
180), 306.
Beatfcy y. Hatcher (13 Ohio St. 115),
249.
Beaty v. Knowler (4 Pet., U. S., 153),
343.
Beaufort v. Smith (4 Ex. 450), 116.
Beaumont v. Perkins (1 Phillim. 78),
141.
Beavan v. Carpenter (11 Sim. 23), 363.
Beaver v. Taylor (1 Wall., U. S., 642),
56.
Beavers v. State (58 Ind. 530), 344.
Beohtel's Appeal (133 Pa. St. 367; 19
Atl. Rep. 412), 138.
Becker v. Baumgartner (III., 1893, Sa
N. E. Rep. 786), 34.
Beckhaus v. Ladner (48 N. J. Eq.
153), 308.
Beckwith v. Windsor Co. (14 Conn.
594), 131.
Bedell v. L. I. Railroad Co. (44 N. T.
367), 199.
Bedford v. Sherman (68 Hun, 317),
60.
Bedgood v. McLain (89 Ga. 793), 139.
Bedlow's Will, In re (67 Hun, 408),
309.
Bee V. Bowman (Tenn., 1891, 14 S.
W. Rep. 481), 248.
Beech's Case (1 Leach's Cas. 158), 23.
Beeks v. Odom (70 Tex, 183), 343.
Beers v. Payment (Mich., 1893, 54
, N. W. Rep. 886), 341. ,
Began v. Hamilton (90 Ala. 454), 362.
Begarly v. State (8 Baxt., Tenn., 520),
95.
Begg v. Beggs (56 Wis. 534), 222.
Begg V. Blake (6 Q. B. 126), 68.
Beham v. Hendrickson (32 N. J. Eq.
441), 220.
Behrensmeyer v. Krietz (185 III. 591),
362.
Behrman v. Lind (47 Hun, 580), 217.
Beitman v. Hopkins (109 Ind. 178),
167.
Beitz V. Fuller (1 McCord, 541), 67.
Belcher v. Mulhall (57 Tex. 17), 305.
Belcher v. State (135 Ind. 419), 97.
Belcher v. Weaver (46 Tex. 293), 136.
Belden v. Allen (61 Conn. 173), 874.
Belfast v. Chichester (2 J. &W. 451),
363.
Belford, Clarke & Co. v. Scribner
(144 U. S. 488), 380.
Bell V. Ansly (16 East, 141), 73.
Bell V. Brewster (44 Ohio St. 694,
696, 697), 8, 106, 107, 129, 140,
141.
Bell V. Chaytar (1 C. & K. 162), 138.
Bell V. Goodnature (Minn., 1892, 53
N. W. Rep. 908), 84.
Bell V. Jamison (103 Mo. 71), 363.
TABLE OF CASES.
XXIX
Beferenoes are to sections.
Bell V. Kendrick (Fla., 1890, 6 S.
Rep, 868), 58.
Bell V. Morrison (1 Pet. 367), 69.
Bell V. Prewitt (63 111. 363), 339.
Bell V. Shields (4 Harr., 19 N. J., 93).
183.
Bell V. State (Tex., 1893, 20 S. W.
Rep. 363), 350.
Bell V. State (1 Tex. App. 81), 337.
Bell V. State (78 Ga. 572), 342.
Bell V. Utley (17 Mich. 508), 69, 211.
Bell V. Woodman (60 Me. 465), 207.
Bell V. Woodward (46 N. H. 315),
231.
Belles V. Anderson (38 111. App. 126),
379.
Bellinger, In re (8 Wend. 595), 354.
Bellows V. Stone (UN. H. 175), 223.
Belmont v. Warrell (69 Me. 314), 242.
Belote T. Wayne (7 Yerg. , Tenn. , 534),
69.
Belzhover v. Blackstock (8 Watts,
20), 174.
Bement v. Claybrook (5 Ind. App.
193; 31 N. E. Rep. 556), 206.
Bement v. May (Ind., 1893, 34 N. E.
Rep. 337), 79.
Bemis v. Vermont R. R. Co. (58 Vt.
636), 198.
Benaway v. Conine (3 Chand., Wis.,
314), 830.
Benecia Works v. Estes (Cal., 189-3,
33 Pac. Rep. 938), 308.
Benedict v. Driggs (34 Hun, 94), 330.
Benedict v. Hall (76 N. C. 113), 356.
Benedict v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co.
(49 N. W. Rep. 408), 53.
Benedict v. State (14 Wis. 433), 7.
Benedict v. State (11 N. E. Rep. 135;
44 Ohio, 679), 116.
Benev. Society v. Phillips (36 Mich.
33), 343.
Benge v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 17 S. W.
Rep. 146), 383^
Benjamin v. Hathaway (3 Conn. 538),
353.
Benjamin v. N. Y. El. R. Co. (63
Hun, 629), 334.
Benn v. Hatcher (81 Va. 34), 306.
Benner v. Dredging Co. (134 N. Y.
456), 367.
Bennet v. Paine (7 Watts, 334), 136.
Bennett v. Dean (41 Mich. 473), 83.
Bennettv. Insurance Co. (8 Daly, 471),
341.
Bennett v. Kroth (37 Kan. 235), 277.
Bennett v. Libhart (27 Mich. 489),
129.
Bennett v. McCaffrey (28 Mo. App.
220), 140.
Bennett v. Runyon (4 Dana, 433),
105.
Bennett v. Russell (34 Mo. 524), 77.
Bennett v. Shipley (82 Mo. 448), 135.
Bennett v-. State (30 Tex. App. 341), 6.
Bennett v. State (28 Tex. App. 359),
347. ,
Bennett v. State (22 S. W. Rep. 684),
134.
Bennett v. State (24 Tex. App. 73),
323.
Bennett v. State (57 Wis. 69), 188.
Bennett v. Syndicate Ins. Co. (43
Minn. 48), 350.
Benninghof v. Cubbison (45 Kan.
621), 370.
Bennison v. Walbank (38 Minn. 313),
193.
Bensberg v. Harris (46 Mo. App. 404),
347.
Bensimer v. Fell (W. Ya., 1891, 12 S.
E. Rep. 1078), 157.
Bensley v. Brockway (37 111. App.
410), 67, 68, 73a.
Benson, In re (16 N. Y. S. Ill), 178.
Benson v. Christian (129 Ind. 535),
244.
Benson v. Dean (40 Minn. 455), 21.
Benson v. Lundy (52 Iowa, 256), 70.
Benson v. McMahon (127 U. S. 467),
135.
Benson v. United States (146 U. S.
245), 306.
Bent V. Baker (3 T. R. 37), 303.
Bentell v. Oliver (89 Ga. 246), 150a.
Bentley v. Brown (37 Kan. 14), 199.
XXX
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Bentley v. Cooke (3 Doug., Eng.,
422), 166.
Bentley v. O'Brien (111 III. 53), 66.
Benton v. Baxley (Ga., 1893, 15 S.
E. Rep. 830), 138.
Benton v. Martin (53 N. Y. 570), 318.
Benton v. State (30 Ark. 338), 344.
Berbesick v. Fritz (39 Iowa, 700),
223.
Berg V. McLafiEerty(12 Atl. Rep. 460),
120.
Berg V. Peterson (53 N. W. Rep. 37 ;
49 Minn. 420), 139.
Berg V. Warner (47 Minn. 350), 71.
Bergen v. People (17 III. 436), 93.
Bergquist v. Iron Co. (49 Minn. 511 ;
53 N. W. Rep. 136), 186.
Berkely Peerage Case (4 Campb. 401-
417), 53, 113.
Berliner v. Waterloo (14 Wis. 378),
343.
Berney v. Dinsmore (141 Mass. 43),
199.
Bernhart v. State (82 Wis. 23), 343.
Berry v. Berry (24 Atl. Rep. 907;
84 Me. 541), 380.
Berry v. Com. (10 Bush, Ky., 15), 93.
Berry v. Haines (4 Wheat. 17), 128.
Berry v. Hall (N. M., 1893, 35 Pac.
Rep. 36), 144.
Berry V. Kowatsky (Cal., 1893, 30
Pac. Rep. 203), 8.
Berry v. Lathrop (24 Ark. 12), 68.
Berry v. Sawyer (19 Fed. Rep. 386),
304.
Berry v. Stevens (71 Me. 503), 303.
Berry v. Stevens (69 Me. 290), 309.
Berry v. United States (2 Colo. Terr.
186), 90.
Berry v. Whitney (40 Mich. 65), 233.
Bertody v. Ison (69 Ga. 317), 254.
Bertrand v. Taylor (32 Ark. 470), 349.
Berwies v. So. Pac. R. Co. (80 Cal.
415), 145.
Besch V. Besoh (37 Tex. 390), 56.
Bestor v. Roberts (58 Ala. 331), 183,
140.
Bethune v. Hale (45 Ala. 532), 244.
Betts V. Gloversville (8 N. Y. S. 795),
138.
Betts V. Starr (5 Com. 550, 553), 160.
Bevan v. Bank (31 N. E. Rep. 679;
39 111. App. 577), 139, 140, t
Bevans v. Barnett (Ark., 1893, 23 S.
W. Rep. 160), 18.
Beveridge v. Parmlee (43 111. App.
459), 380.
Bibb v. Allen (149 U. S. 481), 7, 360.
Bickford v. Menier (9 N. Y. S. 775), '
250.
Bierce v. Stocking (11 Gray, 174), 195.
Bierhaus v. W. U. T. Co. (Ind., 1893,
34 N. E. Rep. 581), 331.
Bigelow V. Copen (145 Mass. 273),
214.
Bigelow V. Legg (103 N. Y. 654), 316.
Bigelow V. Metro. Ry. Co. (48 Mo.
App. 367), 331.
Bigelow V. Summers (38 Fla. 759),
130.
Bigelow V. Winsor (1 Gray, Mass. ,
299, 303), 151.
Bigelow V. Sickles (75 Wis. 528), 168.
Bigham v. Coleman (71 Ga. 176), 133.
Bigler v. Reyher (48 Ind. 112), 174.
Bigoonette v. Paulet (134 Mass. 133),
53.
Billings V. Billings (10 Cush. 178),
312.
Billings V. Stark (15 Fla. 297), 226.
Billingsley v. Dean (Hind. 331), 242.
Binaeld v. State (Neb., 1884, 19 N. W.
Rep. 607), 330.
Binford v. Young (115 Ind. 174), 370.
Bingham v. Cabot (3 Dall. 19), 144.
Bingham v. Hyland (6 N. Y. S, 75),
130. .
Bingham v. Walk (128 Ind. 164; 27
N. E. Rop. 483), 173, 174, 370.
Binkert v. Jensen (94 111. 283), 343.
Binns V. State (16 Ind. 31), 6.
Birbeck v. Burrows (3 Hall, 51), 314.
Bird V. Com. (31 Gratt., Va., 800),
185, 242.
Bird v. Hudson (N. C, 1898, 18 S. E.
Rep. 309), 349.
TABLE OF CASE&.
XXXI
Beferenoes are to sections.
Bird V. Hueston (10 Ohio St. 418),
166, 168.
Bird V. State (107 Ind. 154), .345.
Bird V. Styles (18 N. J. Eq. 397), 304.
Birdsey v. Butterfield (34 Wis. 53),
83.
Birmingham v. Anderson (48 Pa. St.
353), 210.
Birmingham F. Ins. Co. v. Culver
(126 111. 329; 18 N. E. Rep. 804),
200, 341.
Birmingham F. & N. Co. v. Gross
(Ark., 1893, 12 S. Eep. 36), 208.
BischoflE V. Schmetz (5 N. Y. S. 757),
199,
Biscoe V. State (67 Md. 6), 89.
Bishop V. Dillard (49 Ark. 285), 205.
Bishop T. Minton (112 N. C. 524;
17 S. E. Rep. 436), 84.
Bishop V. Tucker (4 Rich., S. C, 78),
123.
Bishop of Meath y. Marquess of
Winchester (3 Bing. N. C. 183),
106.
Bissell V. Adams (55 Conn. 399), 69.
Bissell V. Briggs (9 Mass. 463), 332.
Bissell V. West (35 Ind. 54), 6.
Bixby V. Franklin Ins. Co. (8 Pick.
86), 144.
Bixby V. Montpelier, etc, Co. (49 Vt.
125), 198.
Bixler V. Barker (3 Bush, Ky., 166),
242.
Black V. Epperson (40 Tex. 178), 232.
Black V. Hill (32 Ohio St. 313), 220.
Black V. Lord Braybrook (3 Stark. 7),-
149.
Black V. Shreeve (13 N. J. Eq. 455),
312.
Black y. State (1 Tex. App. 368), 249.
Black V. State (59 Wis. 471), 334.
Black V. Woodson (39 Md. 194), 124.
Blackburn v. Com. (12 Bush, 181),
348.
Blackburn v. Crawfords (3 Wall.
175), 171.
Blackburn v. Hargreave (2 Lew. C. C.
359), 277.
Blackburn v. State (33 Ohio St. 146),
10, 231.
Blackington v. Rockland (66 Me.
853), 38.
Blackledge v. Simpson (3 Hayw.,
S. C, 30), 77.
Blackman v. Riley (63 Hun, 531 ; 28
Abb. N. C. 136), 134.
Blackman v. State (80 Ga. 785), 376.
Blackshire v. Pettit (35 W. Va. 547),
350.
Blackwell v. State (67 Ga. 76), 344.
Blackwell v. State (30 Tex. App. 416;
17 S. W. Rep, 1061), 38.
Blade v. Noland (13 Wend. 173), 336.
Blagen v. Thompson (Oreg., 1893, 31
Pao. Rep. 647), 199.
Blair v. Biittolph (72 Iowa, 31), 212.
Blair v. Madison (81 Iowa, 3), 53.
Blair v. Pelham (118 Miss. 420, 431),
88a, 139.
Blair v. Railroad Co. (89 Mo. 334),
178.
Blair v. Wallace (31 Cal. 317), 333.
Blake v. Graves (18 Iowa, 313, 317),
166.
Blake v. Ladd (10 N. H. 190), 302.
Blake v. People (73 N. Y. 586), 375.
Blake v. Russ (33 Me. 360), 126.
Blake V. Rourke (74 Iowa, 519; 38
N. W. Rep. 393), 197.
Blakeley, In re (48 Wis. 294), 222.
Blaker v. State (39 N. E. Rep. 1077;
130 Ind. 206), 11.
Blakeslee v. Dye (1 Colo. App. 138;
27 Pac. Rep. 881), 359.
Blalock V. Miland (87 Ga. 573), 30,
130.
Blanc Jour v. Tutt (32 Mo. 576), 70.
Blanchard v. Evans (55 N. Y. Super.
Ct. 543), 79.
Blanchard v. Tyler (12 Mich. 89), 336.
Blanchard v. Young (11 Cush. 841,
345), 120, 247.
Blane v. Rogers (49 Cal. 15), 320.
Blewett v. Gaynor (77 Wis. 378), 375.
Blewett V. Tregonning (3 Ad. & EI.
554, 565, 581, 584), 841.
xxxu
TABLE OF CASES.
Heferences are to sections.
Bliss V. Brainard (41 N. H. 256), 250,
276.
Bliss V. Molntire (18 Vt. 466), 128.
Bliss V. New York Cent. & H. E. R.
Co. (Mass., 1894, 36 N. E Rep. 65),
193.
Bliss V. Shuman (47 Me. 252), 277.
Block V. Jacksonville (36 III. 301),
143a.
Block V. Woodron (39 Md. 194), 124.
Blocker v. Burness (2 Ala. 355), 316.
Blodgett V. Jordan (6 Vt. 5S0), 148.
Blood v. Fairbanks (50 Cal. 430),
308.
Bloodgood V. James (12 Johns. 285),
388.
Bloomington v. Osterlee (139 111.
120), 52, 368.
Bloomington v. Schrock (110 III.
221), 189.
Bloomington v. Smith (23 N. E. Rep.
972), 130.
Blossom V. Griffin (13 N. T. 569),
371.
Blount V. Kempton (155 Mass. 378),
168.
Blower v. Hollis (1 Cromp. & M. 396),
147.
Bloxam v. Elsie (1 C. & P. 558), 38.
Blum V. Davis (56 Tex. 426), 358.
Blum V. Manhattan Ry. Co. (1 Misc.
Rep. 119; 20 N. Y. S. 722), 199.
Blumhart v. Rohr (70 Md. 339), 60.
Blythe v. Gibbons (Ind., 1894, 35
N. E. Rep. 557), 208.
Blythe v. State (4 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep.
435), 344.
Boaltaayer v. State (20 S. W. Rep.
1102; 31 Tex. Cr. Rep. 473), 330.
Board v. First Nat. Bank (24 N. Y.
S. 392), 82.
Board v. Misenheimer (78 III. 33),
139.
Boardman v. Reed (6 Pet. 328), 115.
Boardman v. Woodman (47 N. H.
120), 188.
Board of Commissioners v. Diebold
S. & L. Co. (133 U. S. 473), 76.
Board of Com'rs of Franklin County
V. Bunting (111 Ind. 143), 73a.
Bock V. Wygant (5 HI. App. 643),
350.
Bode V. Trimmer (82 Cal. 513), 31.
Boe V. Minn. Milk Co. (44 Minn.
460), 154.
Boehm v. Lies (18 N. Y. S. 577), 253.
Bopran v. Hamilton (90 Ala. 354),
148.
Bogardus v. Clark (4 Paige, 623),
150.
Boggan V. Horn (97 N. C. 268), 60.
Boggus V. State (34 Ga. 375), 140.
Bohannan v. Chapman (13 Ala. 641),
73a.
Bohart v. Chamberlain (99 Mo. 632),
130.
Bohrer v. Lange (44 Minn. 281), 30,
310.
Bohrer v. Stumpf (31 111. App. 139),
7,8.
Bolgiano v. Lock Co. (73 Md, 133),
285.
Boiling V. Fannin (Ala., J893, 13 S.
Rep. 59), 57, 58.
Boiling V. Teel (76 Va. 487), 263.
Boiling V. State (Ark., 1891, 18 S. W.
Rep. 658), 249.
Bollinger Co. v. McDowell (99 Mo.
632), 217.
Bohvar v. Nepensett (16 Pick. 241),
239.
Bompart v. Roderman (34 Mo. 385),
263.
Bond V. Ward (1 Nott & McCord,
301), 73.
Bonds V. Smith (106 N. C. 553), 126.
Bondur v. Le Bourne (79 Me. 21), 24.
Bone V. State (86 Ga. 108), 334.
Bonnard v. State (35 Tex. App. 173),
340.
Bonnelli v. Bowen (74 Miss. 142 ; 11
S. Rep. 791), 850.
Bonner v. Mayfield (82 Tex. 234),
198.
Bonner v. McPhail (31 Barb., N. Y.,
106), 315.
TABLE OF CASES.
XXXIU
References are to sections.
Bonner v. People (40 111. App. 638),
376.
Bonnett v. Glatfeldt (120 III. 166),
60, 343.
Bonstead v. Cuyler (Pa., 1887, 8 Atl.
Rep. 848), 309.
Boogher v. Howe (99 Mo. 183), 11.
Bookman v. N. Y. El. E. R. Co. (187
N. Y. 302), 241.
Bookman v. N. Y. El. R. R. Co. (137
N. Y. 595), 199.
Boon V. State (37 Minn. 126), 230.
Boone v. Miller (73 Tex. 564), 53.
Boorman v. Johnston (13 Wend. 573),
206.
Booth V. Pendola (88 Cal. 36 ; 33 Pac.
Rep. 200), 309.
Booth V. Palte (L. R. 15 App. Cas.
188), 230.
Boothby v. Stanley (34 Me. 515), 139.
Boree v. McLean (34 Wis. 335), 31.
Bork V. People (91 N. Y. 13), 33.
Born V. Rosenow (84 Wis. 63 ; 54 N.
W. Rep. 1089), 334.
Borough V, Brown (11 Pa. Co. Ct. R.
272), -339.
Borst V. Nalle (28 Gratt., Va., 433),
213.
Borum v. Fonts (15 Ind. 50), 168.
Boscowitz, Ex parte (84 Ala. 463 , 4
S. Rep. 379), 354.
Bose V. SoUiers (6 Dow. & Ry. 514),
358.
Bostie V. State (94 Ala. 45), 333.
Bostock V. State (61 Ga. 635, 639), 344.
Boston V. Benson (13 Cush., Mass.,
61), 138.
Boston I. R. Co. v. Hoit (14 Vt. 93),
158.
Boston, etc. Co. v. Dana (1 Gray,
Mass., 83), 37, 176.
Bostwick V. Leech (3 Day, Conn.,
476), 363.
Boswell V. Com. (20 Gratt., Va., 860),
231.
Boteler v. Dexter (30 D. C. 26), 128,
130.
Bott V. Burnell (9 Mass. 96), 150a.
Bottomley v. United States (1 Story,
143), 8.
Boughton V. Seamans (9 Hun, 393),
314.
Boulden v. Mclntire (119 Ind. 574),
234.
Bouldin v. Massie (7 Wheat. 132),
130.
Bouldin v. Phelps (30 Fed. Rep. 547),
342.
Boulter v. Behrend (30 D. C. 567),
358.
Bouman v. Norton (5 C. & P. 177),
171.
Bounds V. Little (79 Tex. 138), 31.
Bourck V. Miller (Oreg., 26 Pac. Rep.
861), 35.
Bourden v. Bailes (101 N. 0. 613),
334.
Bourne v. Boston (3 Gray, 494), 136.
Bouton V. Linsley (84 Wis. 644; 54
N. W. Rep. 1017), 154.
Bovee v. Hurd (134 N. Y. 456), 333.
Bow V. AUentown (34 N. H. 365),
235.
Bowditch V. Mawley (1 Campb. 195),
23.
Bo wen v. Bank (18 N. Y. Super. Ct.
336), 35.
Bowen v. Huntington (35 W. Va.
683), 188, 192.
Bowen v. Missouri P. etc. Co. (Mo.,
1893, 24 S. W. Rep. 436), 243.
Bower v. O'Brien (3 Ind. 423), 140.
Bower t. State (5 Miss. 364), 93.
Bowers v. Hogan (93 Mich. 420), 199.
Bowers v. Overfield (10 Pa. Co. Ct.
Rep. 273), 60.
Bowers v. Schuler (Minn., 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 817), 309.
Bowers v. Smith (8 N. Y. S. 236), 83.
Bowers v. State (19 N. Y. State Rep.
936), 308.
Bowersox v. Gitt (13 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep.
81), 159.
Bowie V. Maddox (39 Ga. 285), 6.
Bowker v. Delong (141 Mass. 351),
73a.
XXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Bowlin V. Com. (Ky., 1893, 32 S. W.
Rep. 543), 383.
Bowling Green v. Com. (79 Ky. 604),
324.
Bowman v. Griffith (35 Neb. 361),
336,
Bowman v. Norton (5 C. & P. 177),
169.
Bowman v. Patrick (32 Fed. Eep.
368), 166.
Bowman v. Sanborn (25 N. H. 87),
133.
Bowman v. Smith (Tex., 1893, 21 S.
W. Rep. 48), 31, 146.
Bowyer v. Martin (6 Rand., Va., 535),
221.
Boyce v. Auditor (52 N. W. Rep. 754;
90 Mich. 314), 31, 146.
Boyd V. Jones (60 Mo. 454), 70.
Boyd V. McConnell (10 Humph.,
Tenn., 68), 128.
Boyd V. Nebraska (143 U. S. ^35; 12
S. Ct. 375), 31.
Boyd V. N. E. Ins. Co. (3 La. Ann.
, 848), 233.
Boyd V. State (2 Humph., Tenn., 37),
89.
Boyd V. State (24 Tex. App. 570), 5.
Boyd V. State (14 Lea, Tenn., 161),
201.
Boyd V. Thompson (153 Pa. St. 78),
68.
Boyd V. United States (143 TJ. S. 87),
320.
Boyden v. Moore (5 Mass. 365), 82.
Boyle V. Chambers (33 Mo. 46), 107.
Boyle V. Coleman (13 Barb., N. Y.,
42), 139a.
Boyle V. State (105 Ind. 4C9), 103.
Boyle V. State (57 Wis. 472), 189.
Boylston v. Giltner (3 Oreg. 118), 193.
Brace v. Doble (S. D., 1893, 53 N. W.
Rep. 859), 24.
Braokett v. Norton (4 Conn. 117), 143.
Bradford v. Dawson (2 Ala. 203), 136.
Bradford v. Floyd (80 Mo. 207), 237.
Bradford v. Williams (2 Md. Ch.
1-3), 71-73a.
Bradish v. Yocum (30 111. 386), 217.
Bradley v. Bradley Xi Wheat. 173),
333.
Bradley v. Merrick (91 N. Y. 293),
123.
Bradley v. Second Ave. R. R. Co. (8
id. 289), 188.
Bradley Fert. Co. v. Taylor (113
N. C. 141 ; 17 S. E. Rep. 69), 883,
332.
Bradly v. Bradly (2 Fairf. 267), 156.
Bradly v. Caswell (Vt., 1893, 26 Atl.
Eep. 956), 219.
Bradly v. Elsby (33 Mich. 338), 142.
Bradly v. West (60 Mo. 33), 229.
Bradly, Adm'r, v. Long (3 Strobh.,
S. C, 160), 132.
Bradshaw v. Bennett (1 M. & Rob.
148), 138.
Bradshaw v. Combs (102 111. 428), 334.
Bradshaw v. Mansfield (18 Tex. App.
31), 343.
Bradshaw v. State (17 Neb. 147), 6.
Bradstreet v. Neptune Ins. Co. (3
Sumn. 600), 158.
Brady v, Cassidy (13 N. Y. S. 834), 24.
Brady v. Valentine (31 N. Y. S. 776;
3 Misc. Rep. 19), 370.
Bragg V. Bletz (7 D. C. 105), 11.
Bragg V. Danielson (141 Mass. 195),
379.
Bragg V. Massie (38 Ala. 89), 233.
Bragg V. Paulk (42 Me. 502), 246.
Bragg V. Stanford (82 Ind. 324), 208.
Brainard v. Buck (35 Vt. 573), 79.
Brainerd v. Brainerd (15 Conn. 575),
223.
Braly v. Henry (77 Cal. 324), 839.
Bramble v. Hunt (68 Hun, 304), 199, '
369.
Bramble v. Kingsbury (39 Ark. 131),
83.
Bramlette v. State (21 Tex. App. 611;
2 S. W. Rep. 765, 875), 6, 166.
Branch v. Wilson (12 Fla. 543), 315.
Brand v. Servass (11 Mont. 86), 367.
Brandas v. Barnett (3 M. G. & S.
519), 343.
TABLE OF CASES.
XXXV
Eeferenoes are to sections.
• Brandt v. Klein (17 Johns. 335), 173.
Branfoot v. Hamilton (52 Fed. Rep.
390), 191.
Bransen v. Kitchenman (148 Pa. St.
541), 8.
Brantley v. Swift (24 Ala. 390), 198.
Bransdale v. Lowe (2 Eus. & My.
143), 363.
Branstetter V. Morgan (N. D.,*1893,
55 N. W. Rep. 758), 374.
Brassell v. State (91 Ala. 45; 8 S.
Rep. 679), 333,
Brauns v. Stearns (1 Oreg. 867), 221.
Brawley v. United States (96 U. S.
168), 317.
Bray v. Kremp (113 Mo. 552; 31 S.
W. Rep. 220), 366.
Brazel v. Fair (36 S. C. 370), 173.
Breckenridge v. Duncan (3 A. K.
Marsh. 50), 331.
Breen v. Moran (51 Minn. 525; 53 N.
W, Rep. 755), 216.
Breher v. Reese (17 111. App. 545),
265.
Breisenmeister v. Lodge (81 Mich.
525), 178.
Brelscher v. Treitske (33 Neb. 699),
385.
Brennan v. Hall (14 N. T. S. 864), 157.
Brennan v. Security L. Ins. Co. (4
Daly, N. Y., 296), ,353.
Brennan v. Voght (Ala., 1893, 11 S.
Rep. 893), 237.
Brennan v. Winkler (37 S. C. 457 ; 16
S. E. Rep. 250), 200.
Bressler v. People (117 111. 432), 384.
Bretts V. Levine (Minn., 1893, 52 N.
W. Rep. 525); 209.
Brewer V. Knapp (1 Pick. 333, 337),
280.
Brewster v. Doane (3 Hill, 537), 58.
Brewster v. McCall (15 Conn. 274),
222.
Brice v. Miller (15 S. E. Rep. 273; 35
S. C. 587), 833, 367.
Briceland v. Com. (74 Pa. St. 469),
249.
Bridge v. Eggleston (14 Mass. 345), 9.
Bridge v. Gray- (14 N. Y. 61), 69.
Bridge Co. v. Miller (III, 1893, 28 N.
E. Rep. 1091), 202.
Bridges v. North London Ry. Co.
(L. R, 7 H. L. 213), 13.
Bridgham's Appeal (82 Me. 323), 371.
Bridgman v. Scott (13 N. Y. S. 338;
59 Hun, 624), 126.
Briel V. Buffalo (68 Hun, 219), 377.
Brierly v. Davol Mills (128 Mass.
391), 198.
Briggs V. Briggs (R. L, 1893, 26 Atl.
Rep. 198), 167.
Briggs V. Com. (82 Va. 554), 349.
Briggs V. Georgia (15 Vt. 61), 60.
Briggs V. Hervey (130 Mass. 187), 230.
Briggs V. Jones (46 Minn. 277), 366.
Briggs V. Minn. S. R. Co. (53 Minn.
36; 53 N. W. Rep. 1019), 188.
Briggs V. Morgan (3 Phil. 825), 303.
Briggs V. Partridge (64 N. Y. 857),
78a.
Briggs V. Rush (1 Tex. Civ. App. 19),
377.
Briggs V. Whipple (7 Vt. 15), 342.
Brigham v. Carr (21 Tex. 142), 73a.
Brigham V. Gott (3 N. Y. S. 518),
178, 309.
Brigham v. Palmer (3 Allen, Mass.,
450), 138.
Brigham v. Peters (1 Gray, 139), 189.
Bright V. Smithers (10 Pa. Co. Ct.
Rep. 647), 159.
Brightman v. Hix (108 Mass. 240), 84.
Brinckle v. Brinckle (34 Leg. Int.
428), 114.
Brinckley v. State (89 Ala. 34), 186.
Bringer, In re (7.Blatch. 268), 234.
Brinkrnan v. Jones (44 Wis. 498),
323.
Brison V. Biison (75 Cal. 535), 313.
Bristol V. Ontario Orphan As3'lum (60
Conn. 473), 222.
Bristol Sav. Bank v. Stiger (Iowa,
1893, 58 N. W. Rep. 265), 208.
Bristow V. Sequeville (L. R. 5 Exch.
275), 143.
Britt V. State (21 Tex. App. 215), 352.
XXXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
Heferences are to sections.
Britton v. Stanley (4 Whart., Pa.,
114), 138.
Britton v. State (115 Ind. 55), 339.
Broad v. Pitt (3 C. & B. 518), 177.
Broad Street Hotel Co. v. Weaver
(57 Ala. 26), 242.
Broat V. Moore (44 Minn. 468), 377.
Brobston v. Cahill (64 111. 356), 140.
Brock V. Brock (116 Pa. St. 113), 168.
Brock V. Coram. (93 Ky. 183 ; 17 S.
W. Rep. 337), 103.
Brock V. Milligau (10 Ohio, 133, 135),
316.
Brockway v. Petted (Mich., 1890, 45
N. W. Rep. 64), 24.
Brodeck v. Hirschfield (57 Vt. 12), 34.
Broder v. Conklin (98 Cal. 360; 33
Pac. Rep. 311), 231, 333, 234.
Brogy V. Com. (10 Gratt., Va., 723),
121.
Brokman v. Myers (59 Hun, 623),
126.
Bromley v. Gofif (75 Me. 213), 31.
Bronson, In re (67 Hun, 387), 79.
Bronsou v. Leach (42 N. W. Rep.
174; 74 Mich. 713), 368.
Brook V. Chaplin (3 Vt. 281), 135,
136.
Brook V. Chicago, etc. Co. (31 Iowa,
504 ; 47 N. W, Rep. 74), 301.
Brook V. Clay (3 A. K. Marsh. 545),
53.
Brook V. Duggan (149 Mass. 396), 56.
Brook V. New Durham (55 N. H.
550), 74.
Brook V. Silver (5 Del. Ch. 7), 304.
Brooke v. Filer (35 Ind. 402), 238.
Brooke v. Tovvnsend (7 Gill, 10), 197.
Brooke v. Tradesmen's Bank (68
Hun, 139), 366.
Brooke v. Washington (8 Gratt., Va.,
248), 267.
Brooken v. State (26 Tex. App. 121 ;
9 S. W. Rep. 735), 333.
Brookline v. Mackintosh (133 Mass.
266), 239.
Brookmire V. Rosa (34 Neb. 327; 51
N. W. Rep. 810), 357.
Brooks V. Byam (1 Story, 296), 305.
Brooks V. Weeks (131 Mass. 433), 347.
Brookser v. State (26 Tex. App. 593),
80.
Broquet v. Tripp (36 Kan. 700; 14
Pac. Rep. 337), 186, 188.
Brotherton v. People (75 N. Y. 159),
6^ 102, 349.
Brotton v. Langert (1 Wash. 267),
337.
Brough V. Perkins (6 Mod. 81), 145.
Browder v. State (30 Tex. App. 614 ;
■18 S. W. Rep. 197), 350.
Brower v. East Rome Town Co. (84
Ga. 319), 60.
Brown v. Baldwin Co. (13 N. Y. S.
893), 216.
Brown v. Bellows (4 Pick. 179), 348.
Brown V. Bocquin (57 Ark. 97; 20
N. W. Rep. 813), 153.
Brown v. Bo wen (90 Mo. 184), 209.
Brown v. Bowen (30 N. Y. 519), 84.
Brown v, Brightman (11 Allen,
Mass., 326), 308.
Brown v. Brown (43 N. H. 35), 221.
Brown v. Brown (1 Hagg. 523), 303.
Brown v. Brown (39 Mich. 793), 353.
Brown v. Cabalin (3 Oreg. 4o), 311.
Brown v. Case (83 S. C. 251), 246.
Brown v. Clark (77 N. Y. 360), 310.
Brown v. Clock (5 N. Y. Supp. 345),
309.
Brown v. Com. (36 Va. 935), SO.
Brown v. Doubleday (61 Vt. 533; 7
Atl. Eep. 135), 187.
Brown v. Edson (23 Vt. 485), 147.
Brown v. Farrar (3 Ohio, 140), 136.
Brown v. Foster (113 Mo. 397), 248.
Brown v. Getchell (11 Mass. 1 1), 286.
Brown v. Griffith (70 Cal. 14), 130.
Brown v. Insurance Co. (70 Iowa,
390), 138.
Brown v. Isbell (11 Ala. 1009), 213.
Brown v. Jewett (18 N. H. 330), 333.
Brown v. Kenyon (108 Ind. 384), 115.
Brown v. Lehigh, etc. Co. (40 111.
App. 603), 333.
Brown v. Lincoln (47 N. H. 368), 139.
TABLE OF CASES.
XXXVU
Beferences are to sections.
Brown v. Marshal (120 Ind. 323),
875.
Brown v. Metz (33 III. 839), 139.
Brown v. Minger (16 Vt. 12), 73.
Brown V. Mooers (6 Gray, 451), 353,
Brown v. Moore (38 Tex. 645), 135.
Brown v. Orr (86 Va. 935), 320.
Brown v. Peckard (4 Utah, 392), 76.
Brown v. Phelan (3 Swan, Tenn.,
629), 128.
Brown v. Piper (91 U. S. 37), 336,
287.
Brown v. Prude (Ala., 1893, 11 S.
Rep. 838), 199.
Brown v. Purkham (18 Pick. 173),
128.
Brown v. Rome, etc. R. R. Co. (45
Hun, 439), 178.
Brown v. Rouse (98 Cal. 257), 18.
Brown v. Scofleld (8 Barb. 379), 239.
Brown y. Selby (3 Biss. 457), 281.
Brown v. Stark (83 Cal. 636), 116.
Brown v. State (1 Pickle, Tenn., 439),
286.
Brown v. State (73 Md. 468), 343.
Brown v. State (33 Tex. Cr. App.
119; 33 S. W. Eep. 596), 80, 383.
Brown v. State (76 Ga. 633), 350.
Brown v. State (32 Miss. 433), 93.
Brown v. State (36 Ohio St. 176), 9.
Brown v. Sullivan (3 Ind. App. 211),
379.
Brown v. Sullivan (71 Tex. 470), 20,
24.
Brown v. Taurick (20 N. Y. S. 3G9),
247, 852.
Brown v. Wood (17 Mass. 68), 333.
Brown v. Wood (131 Mass. 137), 168.
Brown v. Wood (6 Rich., S. C, Eq.
155), 108.
Brown v. Wright (Ark., 1898, 33
S. W. Rep. 1033), 280.
Brown's Case (9 Leigh, Va., 633), 80.
Browne v. Piper (91 U: S. 37), 257.
Brownell v. Pacific R. R. Co. (47 Mo.
250), 57.
Brownfield's Ex'r v. Brownfield (151
Pa. St. 565), 314.
Browning v. Berry (107 N. C. 881),
■ 31.
Brubaker v. Taylor (76 Pa. St. 83),
346.
Bruce v. Crews (89 Ga. 544), 133.
Bruce v. Lumber Co. (87 Va. 381),
207.
Bruce v, Osgood (113 Ind. 860), 262.
Bruce v. Priest (5 Allen, Mass., 100),
10.
Bruce v. Slemp (83 Va. 858), 308.
Bruce v. State (21 S. W. Eep. 602),
850.
Brucker v. State (19 Wis. 539), 344.
Brugnier v. United States (1 Dak. 9),
80.
Brumhall v. Van Campen (8 Minn.
13), 280.
Brundred v. Del Hoyo (20 N. J. L.
838), 144.
Brune v. Rawlings (7 East, 379, 283),
130.
Bruner v. Nesbitt (81 III. App. 317),
68.
Bruner v. Wade (84 Iowa, 698 ; 51
N. W. Eep. 251), 8, 374.
Brunger v. Smith (49 Fed. Rep. 124),
168, 333.
Brunker v. Cummins (Ind., 1893, 32
N. E. Rep. 732), 186, 334.
Bruns v. Close (9 Colo. 335), 130.
Brusch v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. (53
Minn. 513; 55 N. W. Rep. 57),
525.
Bruyn v. Russell (52 Hun, 317), 139.
Brush V. Scribner (11 Conn. 407), 143.
Brush V. Witkins (4 Johns. Ch. 520),
143.
Bryan v. Harrison (76 N. C. 360), 217.
Bryan v. Kales (Ariz., 1893, 31 Pao.
Rep. 517), 129.
Bryan v. State (19 Fla. 364), 33.
Bryan v. Walton (30 Ga. 480), 114.
Bryan v. Wear (4 Mo. 106), 143.
Bryant v. Booze (55 Ga. 488), 67.
Bryant v. Hunter (6 Bush, Ky., 75),
367.
Bryce v. Battler (70 N. C. 585), 69.
XXXVUl
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferences are to sections.
Bubster v. State (33 Neb. 663 ; 50 N.
W. Rep. 953), 89.
Buchanan v. Wise (34 Neb. 695 ; 53
N. W. Rep. 163), 30.
Buohman v. State (59 Ind. 1), 191.
Buck V. Ashbrook (51 Mo. 539), 168.
Buck V. Gage (43 N. W. Rep. 110),
3], 143.
Buck V. Patterson (75 Mich. 397), 309.
Buck V. Pickwell (37 Vt. 104), 363.
Buckinghouse v. Gregg (19 Ind. 401),
239.
Buckley v. Bentley (48 Barb., N. T.,
283), 305.
Buckman v. Alwood (71 111. 155), 223.
Buckman v. Bai-num (15 Conn. 68), 68.
Buckman's Will (64 Vt. 31.S), 168.
Buckner v. Eies (34 N. Y. 344), 367.
Buehler v. Reich (18 N. Y. S. 115),
188.
Buel V. Irvin (34 Mich. 145), 136.
Buell V. Miller (4 N. H. 196), 214.
Buell V. State (73 Ind. 533), 244.
Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Association (136
N. Y. 450), 178.
Buffalo Ins. Co.. v. Steamship Co.
(29 Fed. Rep. 237), 296.
Buffalo L. T. & S. D. Co. v. Asso-
ciation (N. Y., 1891, 27 N, E.
Rep. 943), 144.
Buffum V. Buffium (49 Me. 108), 367.
Buffum V. Harris (5 R. I. 350), 185.
Buford V. Shannon (Ala., 1893, 10 S.
' Rep. 263), 368.
Buie v. Carver (73 N. C. 364), 134.
Bulen V. Granger (63 Mich. 311; 29
N. W. Rep. 718), 139a.
Bulger V. Ross (Ala., 1893, 13 S. Rep.
803), 833.
Bulkin V. Ehret (29 Abb. N. C. 62),
378.
Bulkley v. Van Wyck (5 Paige,
N. Y., 536), 306.
Bull V. Wagner (33 Neb. 346; 49 N.
W. Rep. 1130), 379.
Bullock V. Consumers' Lumber Co.
(Cal., 1893, 31 Pac. Rep. 367),
73a, 230.
Bullock V. Knox (96 Ala. 195; 10 S.
Rep. 339), 234.
Bump V. Cooper (Greg., 1891, 36 Pac.
Rep. 848), 7.
Bunn V. Todd (107 N. C. 226), 209,
Bunnell v. Taintor (4 Conn. 568), 267.
Bunson v. Brooks (68 Ala. 348), 71.
Burdell v. Blain (66 Ga. 170), 239.
Burdick v. Hunt (43 Ind. 381), 176.
Burdin v. Trenton (Mo., 1893, 23 S.
W. Rep. 738), 367.
Burditt V. Hunt (25 Me. 419), 214.
Burford v. McCue (53 Pa. St. 427),
129.
Burg V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
(Iowa, 1894, 57 N. W. Rep. 680),
189, 201.
Purge V. State (63 Ga. 170), 23.
Burger v. State (83 Ala. 36), 341.
Burghart v. Angastain (6 C. & P.
' 390), 144.
Burgin v. Chenault (9 B. Mon., Ky.,
385), 108.
Burgo V. State (26 Neb. 639; 42 N.
W. Rep. 701), 231.
Burhans v. Norwood Park (138 111.
147; 27 N. E. Rep. 1088), 346.
Burke v. Cutler (78 Iowa, 299; 43
N. W. Rep. 204), 36.
Burke v. Miller (7 Cush., Mass., 547-
550), 341.
Burke v. Miltonberger (19 Wall. 519),
240.
Burkbalter v. Coward (16 S. C. 435),
249.
Burkhalter v. State (58 Pa. St. 376),
379.
Burlington v. Calais (1 Vt. 385), 72.
Burlington, etc. Co. v. Wallace (28
Neb. 179 ; 44 N. W. Rep, 335),
337.
Burnell v. Wild (76 N. Y. 103), 148.
Burnett v. Burkhead (21 Ark. 77), 71.
Burnett v. State (87 Ga. 623), 9, 89.
Burney v. State (87 Ala. 80), 324.
Burnham v. Adams (5 Vt. 313), 60.
Burnham v. Cleary (84 Wis. 117),
309.
TABLE OF CASES.
XXXIX
Keferenoes are to sections.
Burnham v. Davis (144 Mass. 104),
247.
Burnham v. Ellis (39 Me. 319), 73a.
Burnham v. Gosnell (47 Mo. App.
637), 128.
Burnham v. Hatfield (5 Blackf., Ind.,
31), 176.
Burnham v. Morrissey (14 Gray,
336), 288.
Burnham v Sherwood (14 Atl. Rep.
714; 56 Conn. 229), 385.
Burnham v. Stevens (33 N. H. 347),
284.
Burnham v. Sweatt (16 N. H. 418),
66.
Burns v. Barenfeld (34 Ind. 43), 193.
Burns v. Fay (14 Peck. 8), 60.
Burns v. Hendrix (54 Ala. 78), 233.
Burns V. Scott (117 U. S. 582), 305.
Burns v. Thompson (91 Ind. 146),
207.
Burns v. Welch (8 Terg., Tenn., 117),
198.
Burpenning v. EaiU-oad Co. (48 N.
W. Rep. 444), 243.
Burr V, Sim (4 Whart. 150), 233.
Burr V. Wilson (22 Minn. 206), 6.
Burrows v. Klunk (70 Md. 451), 128.
Burr's Trial (pp. 186, 187), 175.
Burt V. McKinstry (4 Minn. 146),
70.
Burt V. Wigglesworth (117 Mass.
302), 253.
Burton v. Driggs (20 Wall., U. S.,
136), 87.
Burton v. Schenck (40 Minn. 53),
:50a.
Burton v. Tuite (80 Mich. 218), 150a.
Burwell V. Sneed (104 N. C. 118; 10
S. E. Rep. 153), 145, 188.
Bush V. Barnett (96 Cal. 202), 53.
Bush V. Barrow (78 Tex. .'i), 154.
Bush V. Bush (87 Mo. 480), 51.
Bushv. Com. (80 Ky. 348, 250; 17
S. W. Rep. 330), 89, 316.
Bush V. Jones (94 Md. 233), 154.
Bush V. Smith (1 C. M. & R. 94), 339.
Bush V. Stowell (71 Pa. St. 208), 69.
Bushel V. Barrett (Ry. & M. 434),
320.
Bushnell V. Glessner (46 Minn. 531),
250.
Buswell V. Luicks (8 Daly, N. Y.,
518), 51.
Buswell V. Pioneer (37 N. Y. 312),
211.
Buswell V. Trimmer (144 Mass. 350),
10.
Butcher v. Brownsville (3 Kan. 70),
242.
Bute V. Potts (18 Pac. Rep. 329; 76
Cal. 304), 193.
Butler V. Benson (1 Barb. 526), 337.
Butler V. Catling (1 Root, Conn.,
310), 305.
Butler V. Chicago, etc. Co. (Iowa,
1893, 54 N. W. Rep. 308), 13, 186.
Butler V. Collins (13 Cal. 457), 9.
Butler V. Cornell (III., 1893, 35 N. E.
Rep. 767), 188.
Butler V. Insurance Co. (45 Iowa, 93),
197.
Butler V. Man. Ry. Co. (24 N. Y. S.
143), 52.
Butler V. Moore (cited in McNally,
Evid., 253, 2.54), 177.
Butler V. Mountgarret (7 H. L. Cas.
633), 52.
Butler' V. Price (115 Mass. 578), 71.
Butler V. State (Ga., 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 894), 334.
Butler V. Wentworth (84 Me. 25),
320.
Butrick v. Allen (8 Mass. 273), 149.
Butriok v. Tilton (155 Mass. 461; 29
N. E. Rep. 1088), 53.
Butterfield v. Gilchrist (63 Midi.
155), 340, 374.
Button V. Am. Tract Soc. (23 Vt.
338), 223.
Butz V. Schwartz (32 111. App. 156),
308.'
Buxton V. Edwards (134 Mass. 867),
69.
Buzard v. McNulty (77 Tex. 438 ; 14
S. W. Rep. 38a), 76.
xl
TABLE OF CASES.
Heferenoes are to sections.
Buzzell V. Willard (44 Vt. 44), 212.
Byers v. Van Deusen (5 Wend. 268),
232.
Byrnes v. Pac. Exp. Co. (Tex., 1891,
15 S. W. Rep. 46), 337, 339.
Cable V. Cable (146 Pa. St. 451), 134.
Cable V. Com. (Kj., 1893, 20 S. W.
Eep. 220), 93, 97.
Cadwallader v. Zeh (14 S. Ct. 288,
U. S., 1894), 8.
Cady V. Shepard (11 Pick. 400), 69.
Cady V. Walker (62 Mich, 157), 171,
314.
CaflEer v. Scheming (Ala., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 123), 142.
Caflfey v. State (94 Ala. 76), 6.
Cabill V. Colgan (Cal., 1893, 31 Pac.
Rep. 614), 18.
Cahill V. Murphy (30 Pac. Rep. 195 ;
94 Cal. 129), 369.
Cahn, In re (3 Redf. Sur. 31), 223.
Cahn V. Monroe (29 Fed. Rep. 675),
276.
Cain V. Cain (140 Pa. St. 144), 79,
Cain V. Cody (Cal., 1892, 29 Pac.
Rep. 778), 24.
Cain V. Heard (1 Coldw., Tenn., 163),
268.
Cairns v. Mooney (62 Vt. 172), 309.
Cake V. Bank (116 Pa. St. 264), 208,
212.
Calderon v. O'Donahue (47 Fed. Rep.
39), 56.
Caldwell v. Bowen (80 Mich. 382),
339.
Caldwell v. Center (30 Cal. 54'3), 210.
Caldwell v. Davis (10 Colo. 481; 15
Pac. Rep. 696), 157, 172.
Caldwell v. Depew (40 Minn. 528),
233.
Caldwell v. Fulton (31 Pa. St. 849),
217.
Caldwell v. Garner (31 Mo. 131), 73a.
Caldwell v. Murphy (11 N. Y. 416),
153.
Caldwell v. Richmond, etc. Co. (89
Ga. 550), 241.
Calhoun v. Richardson (30 Conn.
210), 211.
Callahan v. N. Y., Lake Erie & W.
R. R. (102 N. Y. 194), 186.
Callahan v. State (41 Tex. 439), 23.
Callan v. Lukens (89 Pa. St. 136), 24.
Callan v. McDaniel (72 Ala. 96), 76.
Callender v. Olcott (4 Mich. 344),
150a.
Calvert v. Flower (7 C. & P. 386),
126.
Cambreling v. Purton (56 Hun, 610 ;
125 N. Y. 610), 233.
Cameron v. Fay (55 Tex. 38), 86.
Cameron v. Lightfoot (3 W. Bl. 1193).
381.
Camoys Peerage Case (6 CI. & Fin.
789), 53.
Campau v. Dubois (39 Mich. 274), 75.
Campau v. North (39 Mich. 606), 178.
Campbell v. Campbell (54 N. Y.
Super. Ct Rep. 381), 300.
Campbell v. Campbell (30 N. J. Eq.
415), 268.
Campbell v. Chase (12 R. I. 333), 168.
Campbell v. Com. (84 Pa. St. 187),
333.
Campbell v. Dalhousie (L. E. 1 H. L.
App. 463), 364.
Campbell v. Dearborn (109 Mass.
130), 323.
Campbell v. Johnson (44 Mo. 247),
207.
CJampbell v. Juimies (3 Misc. R. 316),
11.
Campbell v. McArthur (2 Hawks, N.
C, 83), 128.
Campbell v. Morgan (68 Hun, 490),
210.
Campbell v. Russell (189 Mass. 278),
198.
Campbell v. State (30 Tex. App. 369),
334.
Campbell v. State (8 Tex. App. 84),
50.
Campbell v. State (38 Ark. 498), 10.
TABLE OF OASES.
xli
Beferenoes are to seotions.
Campbell v. State (Tex., 1893, 18 S.
W. Eep. 40»), 11.
Campbell V. State (S3 Ala. 41), 186.
Campbell v. State (55 Ala. 80), 80.
Campbell v. Upshur (3 Humph.,
Tenn., 185), 305.
Campbell v. West (44 Cal. 646), .229.
Campbell v. "West (86 Cal. 197), 239,
240.
Campbell v. Weston (3 Paige, 124),
314.
Campbell T. Wood (116 Mo. 196; 33
S. W. Rep. 796), 330.
Campbell v. Woodstock Iron Co. (83
Ala. 351), 103.
Campbell Banking Co. v. Cole (Iowa,
1898, 56 N. W. Rep. 441), 308.
Canaday v. Johnson (40 Iowa, 587),
308.
Candelaria v. Railroad Co. (N, M.,
1893, 37 Pac. Rep. 497), 11.
Canfield v. Asheville, etc. Co. (Ill N.
C. 597), 385.
Cannon v. People (141 111. 370; 30 N.
E. Rep, 1077), 333, 334.
Cantoj Ex parte (31 Tex. App. 61),
33.
Cantrell v. State (37 Ind. 505), 357.
Cape Girardeau- v. Burrough (113
Mo. 559), 334.
Capehart v. Mills (Ala., 1893, 12 S.
Rep. 44), 129.
Capling V. Herman (17 Mich. 534),
149.
Caralier v. Insurance Co. (63 Hun,
83), 236.
Carberry v. Warrell (68 Miss. 573),
383.
Card V. Foot (57 Conn, 431), 332,
337.
Card V. State (109 Ind, 430), 9, 69.
Garden v. State (84 Ala. 417; 4 S.
Rep. 833), 80,
Carey v. Carey (104 N. C. 171), 309.
Carey v. Carey (168 N. C. 267), 171.
Cargain v. Everett (63 Hun, 620), 24.
Cargill V. Com. (Ky., 1893, 20 S. W.
Rep. 782), 348.
Carico v. Com. (7 Bush, Ky., 124),
103.
Carleton v. Carleton (85 N. Y. 313),
358.
Carley v. Railroad Co. (48 Hun, 619),
366.
Carlile v. Burley (3 Greenl. 250), 309.
Carlisle v. Carlisle (78 Ala. 543), 135,
136.
Carlisle v. Cooper (19 N. J. Eq. 256),
239.
Carllo V. State (Tex., 1893, 22 S. W.
Rep. 147), 283.
Carlton v. Baldwin (37 Tex. 573), 70.
Carlton v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 18 S. W.
Rep. 535), 330.
Carlyle v. Carlyle Power Co. (36 111.
App. 28), 151.
Carmell v. Phenix Ins. Co. (59 Me.
583), 200.
Carnegie v. Morrison (2 Met. , Mass, ,
404), 143.
Carnright v. Gray (11 N. Y. S. 378:
27 N. E. Rep. 835). 330.
Carpenter v, Bailey (29 Pac. Rep.
101 ; 94 Cal. 406), 188, 197.
Carpenter v. Ban-k (119 111. 853), 254.
Carpenter v. Dexter (8 Wall., U. S.,
513), 135, 136, 343.
Carpenter v. Eastern Trans. Co. (71
N. Y. 374; 67 Barb. 570), 198.
Carpenter v. Hatch (64 N. H. 573; 15
Atl. Rep. 319), 197.
Carpenter v. Huflfiteller (87 N. C.
273), 24.
Carpenter v. Jamison (75 Mo. 385),
311.
Carpenter v. Knapp (66 Mun, 632),
373, 381.
Carpenter v. Strange (141 U. S. 87),
159.
Carpenter v. Tucker (98 N. C. 316),
124.
Carpenter v. Willey (65 Vt. 169 ; 26
Atl. Rep. 488), 13, 226, 366.
Carr v. Gravitt (54 Mich. 540), 367.
Carr v. State (10 S. E. Rep. 636; 84
Ga. 350), 89.
xlii
TABLE OF OASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Carr v. State (Ind., 1893, 34 N. E.
Eep. 593), 10.
Carrier v. Hampton (11 Ired. L., N.
C, 307), 131, 139a.
Carrington v. Potter (37 Fed. Eep.
767), 144.
Carrington v. St. Louis (89 Mo. 203),
178.
Carrington v. Stimson (1 Curtis C. C.
437), 360.
Carroll v. Com. (84 Pa. St. 107), 324.
Carroll v. O'Conner (Ind., 1894, 35
N. E. Rep. 1006), 205.
Carroll v. O'Shea (21 N. Y. S. 956),
366.
Carroll v. Railroad Co. (HI Mass, 1),
84.
Carroll v. State (5 Neb. 31), 306, 333,
344.
Carroll v. State (23 Ala. 28), 188.
Carroll v. State (Tex., 1893, 24 S. W.
Rep. 100), 354.
Carroll v. Water Co. (5 Wash. St.
618), 18.
Carroll v. Welch (26 Tex. 147), 199.
Carruthers v. Town (Iowa, 1893, 53
N. W. Rep. 240), 199.
Carskadon v. Williams (7 W. Va.
784), 69.
Carson v. Gillitt (2 N. D. 255 ; 50 N.
W. Eep. 710), 73a.
Carson v. Smith (5 Minn. 78), 246.
Carson v. State (80 Ga. 170), 330.
Carter v. Bennett (4 Fla. 352), 151.
Carter v. Burnham (31 Ark. 213), 69,
73a.
Carter v. Carter (37 111. App. 219 ; 38
N. E. Rep. 948), 183.
Carter v. Chandron (31 Ala. 73), 106.
Carter v. Jackson (58 N. H. 156), 140.
Carter v. State (Neb., 1893, 54 N. W.
Rep. 853), 350.
Carter v. State (33 Fla. 553), 334.
Carter v. Tinioum Co. (77 Pa. St.
310), 229.
Carter v. West (Ky,, 1893, 19 S. W.
Rep. 592), 168, 250.
■Carthaus v. State (78 Wis. 540), 283.
Cartier v. Lumber Co. (35 111. App.
449), 226.
Cartlege v. CutlifiE (29 Ga. 758), 304.
Cartwright v. Cartwright (36 W. E.
684), 143.
Cartwright v. Cartwright (1 Phill.
100), 231.
Cartwright v. Clopton (25 Ga. 85),
314.
Carver, In re (23 N. Y. S. 753), 129.
Carver v. Jackson (4 Peters, 85), 151.
Carwin v. Morehead (51 Iowa, 99), 30.
Gary v. White (59 N. Y. 336), 309.
Case V. Blood (71 Iowa, 632), 124.
Case V. Case (17 Cal. 098), 234.
Case V. Heely (26 Kan. 353), 147.
Case V. Mobile (30 Ala. 538), 24.
Case V. Perew (46 Hun, 57), 241.
Case V. Reeve (14 John. 81), 151.
Case V. Seger (4 Wash. St. 492), 263.
Casebolt v. Ackerman (46 N. J. L.
169), 69.
Caset V. State (40 Ark. 511), 231.
Casey v. O'Shaughnessy (7 Jur. 1140),
53.
Casey v. People (31 Hun, 528), 249.
Casey v. Reeves (46 Kan. 571), 239.
Casey v. State (20 Neb. 138), 7.
Cash V. Auditor (7 Ind. 227), 339.
Cashman v. Harrisbn (90 Cal. 297), 7.
Cassell V. Cooke (8 Serg. & R. 368),
136.
Cassells v. Usry (51 Ga. 621), 74.
Cassiano v. Straus (23 N. Y. S. 1036),
370.
Cassin v. La Salle County (31 S. W.
Rep. 123; 1 Tex. Civ. App. 137),
369.
Castell V. Millison (41 III. App. 61),
136, 375.
Castillo V. State (31 Tex. Cr. Rep.
145; 19 S. W. Eop. 892), 52.
Castner v. Richardson (Colo., 1898,
33 Pac. Eep. 163), 380.
Castor v. Davis (Ind., 1890, 20 N. E.
Rep. 110), 331.
Castor v. Fry (33 W. Va. 449; 10 S.
E. Rep. 799), 66, 208.
TABLE OF CASES.
xliii
Befereuces are to sections.
Gates V. Kellogg (9 Ind. 506), 76.
Gates V. Loftus (3 A. K. Marsh. 203),
139.
Cathcart v. Com. (37 Pa. St. 108), 10.
Gathcart v. Robinson (5 Pet. 263),
333.
Catlett V. Insurance Co. (1 Paine,
U. S. C. C. 594), 149.
Catlin V. Harris (Wash., 1894, 35
Pac. Rep. 385), 205.
Catoe V. Catoe (32 S. C. 595 ; 10 S. E.
Rep. 1078), 211. 213.
Gaton V. Lenox (5 Rand., Va., 31),
134.
Gavanaugh v. Buehler (120 Pa. St.
441), 343.
Cavanaugh v. Jackson (91 Cal. 580),
263.
Gavazos v. Trevino (6 Wall., U. S.,
773), 206.
Gavender v. Guild (4 Cal. 350), 343.
Cavendish v. Troy (41 Vt. 99), 188.
Caughran v. Oilman (81 Iowa, 442),
159, 242.
GaujoUe v. Ferrie (23 N. Y. 91 ; 26
Barb. 177), 53, 334.
Cecil V. Beaver (28 Iowa, 340), 326.
Cecil V. Cecil (20 Md. 153), 215. ,
Central Bank v. Baltimore (20 Atl.
,Rep. 283, Md., 1890), 242.
Central Bank v. Veasey (14 Ark. 671),
148.
Central Branch V. P. R. Co. v. But-
man (23 Kan. 446), 76.
Central B. Corp. v. Butler (3 Gray,
Mass., 133), 344.
Central R. Co. v. Attaway (1893, 16
S. E. Rep. 956), 3.
Central R. Co. v. Curtis (87 Ga. 416),
382.
Central R. Co. v. Hubbard (86 Ga.
623), 34.
Central R. Co. v. Kent (84 Ga. 351),
50.
Central R. Co. v. Stolmer (51 Fed.
Rep. 518), 76.
Central R., etc. Co. v. Ingram (95
Ala. 153; 10 S. Rep. 516), 11.
D
Central R. & B. Co. v. Cons, & Inv.
Co. (32 S. C. 319; 33 id. 599),
349.
Central R. & Banking Co. v. Ingram
(Ala., 1893, 13 S. Rep. 801), 370.
Central W. H. Co. v. Sargent (40 111.
App. 438), 850, 351.
Ghabbock's Case (1 Mass. 144), 89.
Chace v. Chace (130 Mass. 128), 246.
Chaddock v. Clifton (23 Wis. 115),
80.
Ghadsey v. Greene (34 Conn. 563),
77.
Ghadwick v. Perkins (3 Me. 899),
246.
Chaffee v. Baptist Miss. Con. (10
Paige, 35), 138.
Chaffee v. Jones (19 Pick., Mass.,
260), 287.
Chaffee v. Taylor (3 Allen, Mass..
598), 139.
Chalk V. Raine (7 Hare, 893), 143.
Chamberlain v. Boone (74 Tex. 659),
130.
Chamberlain v. Brasley (110 Mass.
88), 143.
Chamberlain v. Carlisle (36 N. H.
540), 160.
Chamberlain v. Davis (33 N. H. 12),
71.
Chamberlain v. Pybas (81 Tex. 511),
135.
Chambers v. People (105 111. 489),
381.
Chambers v. Ringslaff (69 Ala. 140),
331.
Chambers v. Watson (60 Iowa, 339),
830.
Chamble v. Martin (37 Tex. 139), 129.
Chanibless v. State (Tex., 1894, 24 S.
W. Rep. 899), 354.
Chandler v. Avery (47 Hun, 9), 324.
Chandler v. Barron (45 Me. 534),
139a.
Chandler v. Beal (137 Ind. 596), 376,
339, 366, 367.
Chandler v. Jost (96 Ala. 596; 11 S,
Rep. 636), 348.
xliv
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Chandler v. Knott (53 N. W. Rep.
88), 11,
Chandler v. Thompson (30 Fed. Rep.
38), 198.
Chapel V, Washburn (11 Ind. 893),
73.
Chapin v. Cambria Iron Co. (145 Pa.
St. 478), 209.
Chapin v. Chicago, etc. Co. (79 Iowa,
582; 44 N. W. Rep. 820), 211.
Chapin V. Curtis (23 Conn. 388), 151.
Chapin v. Dobson (78 N. Y. 74), 209.
Chapman v. Chapman (48 Kan. 636 ;
29 Pao. Rep. 1074), 159.
Chapman v. Chapman (2 Conn, 347),
53.
Chapman v. Chicago, etc. Co. (26
Wis. 295), 80.
Chapman v. Davis (3 M. & G. 609),
284.
Chapman v. Ewing (78 Ala. 403), 77,
314.
Chapman v. Kimball (84 Me. 889),
233.
Chapman v. Peebles (84 Ala. 283 ; 4
S. Rep. 273), 157.
Chapman v. Fingry (67 Me. 198), 83.
Chapman v. Pollack (70 Oal. 487),
210.
Chapman v. Sutton (68 Wis. 657),
211.
Chapman v. Twitchell (87 Me. 59), 77.
Chappell V. Missionary Soo. (3 Ind.
App. 356), 222.
Charles v. Marrow (99 Mo. 638), 229.
Charles v. Patch (87 Mo. 450), 217.
Charles v. State (49 Ala. 332), 50.
Charlesworth v. Tinker (18 Wis. 633),
123.
Charlotte v. Chouteau (33 Mo. 194),
143.
Charter Oak L. Ins. Co. t. Rodel (95
U. S. 232), 197.
Chase v. Debolt (7 111. 571), 124.
Chase v. Evoy (51 Cal. 618), 308.
Chase v. Fish (16 Me. 132), 287.
Chase v. Garretson (54 N. J. L. 42),
862.
Chase V. Hathaway (14 Mass. 223,
227), 150.
Chase v. Jones (84 Me. 107), 380.
Chase v. People (40 111. 352), 249.
Chase v. Perley (148 Mass. 289), 343.
Chase v. State (46 Miss. 683), 10.
Chase V. Stockett (Md., 1890, 19 Atl.
Rep. 761), 246.
Chase v. Street (10 Iowa, 598), 357.
Chateaugay, etc. Co. v. Blake (144
U. S. 476), 188, 216, 374.
Chatfield v. Simonson (92 N. Y. 309),
83.
Chattanooga Co. v. Glowdis (Ga.,
1893, 17 S. E. Rep. 88), 56.
Chattanooga, etc. Co. v. Owen (Ga.,
1893, 15 S. E. Rep. 853), 339, 347.
Chattues v. Raitt (20 Ohio, 133), 126.
Cheague v. Tuite (44 111. App. 535),
141.
Cheatham v. State (7 S. Rep. 204; 67
Miss. 335), 229, 324.
Cheek v. Herndon (82 Tex. 146), 366.
Cheever v. Congdon (34 Mich. 296),
53.
Cheever v. Sweet (151 Mass. 186; S3
N. E. Rep. 831), 12.
Cheever v. Wilson (9 Wall. 108), 243.
Cheltenham Co. v. Cook (44 Mo. 29),
73.
Chemsford Co. v. Demarest (7 Gray,
Mass., 1), 73.
Chenango Bank v. Lewis (68 Barb.
Ill), 58, 144.
Chenery v. Dole (39 Me. 164), 263.
Cheney v. Dunlap (20 Neb. 265), 141.
Cherry v. Baker (17 Md. 75), 244.
Cherry v. Buttler (17 S. W. Rep.
1090), 79.
Cherry v. State (6 Fla. 679), 176.
Cherry v. State (68 Ala. 29), 53.
Chesley v. Chesley (10 N. H. 827), 79.
Chester v. Armstrong (66 Md. 113),
139a.
Chester v. Bakersfield (64 Cal. 42),
868.
Chester v. State (23 Tex. App. 577),
140.
TABLE OF CASES.
xlv
Beferenoes are to sections.
Chester v. Wilhelm (111 N. C. 314),
847.
Cheshire v. Wagon Co. (89 Ga. 249),
150.
Chewacla Works v. Dismukea (87
Ala. 344), 24.
Chicago V. Powers (42 111. 169), 8.
Chicago V. Edson (43 111. App. 417),
367.
Chicago Attachment Co. v. Davis
(142 111. 171 ; 28 N. E. Eep. 859),
265.
Chicago & A. B. Co. v. Anglo-Amer-
>> ican Packing Co, (46 Fed. Eep.
584), 159.
Chicago E. & B, P. Co. v. Johnson
(44 111. App. 234), 377.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Behmey (48 Kan,
47), 366.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Bivans (142 111.
401 ; 33 N. E. Rep. 456), 369.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Brown (44 Kan.
384), 130.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Bryan (90 111.
126), 253.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Champion (33
N. W. Rep, 874), 337.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Debaum (3 Ind.
App. 281), 366.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Duffin (136 111.
100; 18 N. E. Rep. 379), 282.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Emery (Kan.,
1893, 33 Pac. Rep. 631), 8.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Fisher (111., 1893,
31 N. E. Rep. 406), 385.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. George (19 III.
510). 186.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Hazels (26 Neb.
364; 43 N. W. Eep. 93), 342.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Keegan (31 N.
E. Rep. 550), 134.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Leah, 41 111,
App. 584, 593), 344.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Lewis (111,, 1893,
33 N. E. Rep. 230), 227.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Rolvink (31 111.
App. 596), 19.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Shank (131 111.
283; 23 N. E. Rep. 436, 333.
Chicago, etc, Co, v. Smith (Ind., 1893,
33 N. E. Rep. 241), 18.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Spelker (Ind.,
1893, 33 N. E. Rep. 280), 8, 53.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Tuite (44 111.
App. 535), 143.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Wedel (144 111.
9; 33 N. E. Rep. 547), 373.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Woodward (47
Kan. 191), 336.
Chicago, etc. E. E. Co, v. Fisher (141
111. 614; 31 N. E, Rep. 406), 11,
Chicago, etc. Eoad v. Fietsam (19111.
App. 55), 31.
Chicago, K. & N. E. Co. v. Stewart
(47 Kan. 704), 340.
Chicago, K. & W. R, Co. v. Stewart
(31 Pac. Rep. 668; 50 Kan. 33),
199.
Chicago R. R, Co. v. Dillon (123 111.
570), 366.
Chicago R. R. Co. v. Fox (41 111. App.
106), 70.
Chicago R. R. Co. v. Lambert (119 111.
255), 192.
Chicago E. E. Co. v. Mouriquand (45
Kan. 170), 199.
Child V. Ellsworth (3 D., M. & G. 683),
150.
Child V. Kingsbury (46 Vt. 47), 115.
Childress v. Cutler (16 Mo. 24), 144.
Childrey v. Huntington (34 W. Va.
457), 31.
Childs V. Dobbins (61 Iowa, 109), 308.
Childs V. State (Tex., 1893, 22 S. W.
Eep. 1039), 283, 346.
Chiniquy v. Catholic Bishop (41 111.
148), 135.
Chipman v. Kellogg (60 Mich, 438),
60.
Chirac v. Eeinecker (11 .Wheat. 280,
295), 157, 168.
Chism V. State (Miss., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 852), 347.
Chittenden v. Com. (Ky., 1888, 9 S.
W. Rep. 386), 103.
Choate v. Huff (Tex., 1893, 18 S. W.
Rep. 87), 363.
Chouteau v. Allen (70 Mo. 290), 136.
xlvi
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Chouteau v. Soulard (9 Mo. 581), 343.
Christensen v. Union Trunk Line
(Wash., 1893, 33 Pac. Eep.
1018), 8.
Christian v. Williams (35 Mo. App.
297), 285.
Christian Co. Bank v. Good (44 Mo.
App. 139), 128.
Christman v. Phillips (58 Hun, 382),
31.
Christmas v. Whingates (33 L. J.
Prob. 78), 129.
Christy v. Spring (97 Cal. 21 ; 31 Pac.
Eep. 110), 153.
Chubb V. Salomons (3 C. & K. 75),
175.
Chumasero v. Gilbert (34 111. 393),
243.
Church V. Chicago, etc, Co. (Mo.,
1893, 33 S. W. Rep. 1056), 351.
Church V. Grossman (49 Iowa, 444),
333.
Church V. Howard (79 N. Y. 415), 67.
Church V. Hubbard (3 Cranch, 187,
338), 143, 243.
Church V. Milwaukee (31 Wis. 519),
82.
Church V. Mott (7 Paige, N. T., 77),
318.
Church V. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (158
Mass. 475; 33 N. E. Eep. 573),
198.
Church V. Euland (64 Pa. St. 433),
332.
Churchill v. Suter(4Mass. 163), 323.
Churchman v. Bowman (95 Cal. 54 ;
30 Pac. Eep. 770), 82.
Churchman v. Kansas City (49 Mo.
App. 366), 366.
Churchman v. Smith (6 Whart. 106),
60.
Chute V. State (19 Minn. 371), 344.
Cicotte V. Cruciaux (53 Mich. 337),
337.
Cihak V. Klenke (117 111. 643), 8.
Ciley V. Van Patten (35 N. W. Eep.
881 ; 69 Mich. 400), 36.
CiUey V. Huse (40 N. H. 358), 388.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Jones (21 S.
W. Eep. 192), 240.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v, Eoesch (136
Ind. 445), 366.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Smith (33
Ohio St. 337), 198.
Ciocci V. Ciocci (29 L. T. Pr. & M.
30), 9.
Cist V. Ziegler (16 S. & E. 282), 160.
Citizens' Gaslight Co. v. Granger (19
111. App. 301), 67a.
Citizens' G. L. Co. v, O'Brien (118
111. 174), 308.
City V. Devine (1 W. N. C, Pa., 358),
356.
City v..Drexel (141 111. 89; 30 N. E.
Eep. 774), 371.
City V. Dunn (1 McCord, S. C, 333),
143a.
City V. Edson (43 111. App. 417), 370.
City V. Shawhan (9 Am. & Eng.
Corp. Cas. 556), 131.
City Council v. King (4 McCord, 487),
288.
City of Sandwich v. Dolan (31 N. E.
Eep. 416; 42 111. App. 53), 350.
City of St. Louis v. Missouri Pac.
E. Co. (114 Mo. 13 ; 31 S. W. Eep.
202), 370.
Claflin V. Baer (38 Hun, N. Y., 304),
253.
Clafy V. Farrow (18 N. Y. S. 160),
247.
Clancy v. Cranie (2 Dev. Eq., N. C,
363), 267.
Clanton v. Scruggs (Ala., 1892, 10 S.
Eep. 757), 263.
Clapp V. Bullard (23 111. App. 609),
350, 351.
Clapp V. Collins (7 N. Y. S. 98), 128.
Clapp V. Engledow (82 Tex. 390), 71.
Clapp V. Hartford (35 Conn. 66), 242.
Clapp V. Herrick (129 Mass. 392), 151.
Clapp V. Wilson (5 Denio, N. Y.,
285), 354.
Clapsaddle, In re (34 N. Y. S. 313),
60, 61.
Clark V. Anderson (14 Daly, 464), 73a.
TABLE OF OASES.
xlvii
Heferences are to sections.
Clark V. Bradstreet (80 Me. 456), 345.
Clark V. Bruce (13 Hun, 271), 141,
195, 197.
Clark V. Carrington (7 Cranch, 308),
78.
Clark V. Coffin Co. (125 Ind. 377), 317,
330.
Clark V. Com. (133 Pa. St. 555), 5.
Clark V. Culidge (8 Kan. 189), 84.
Clark V. Donnavant (10 Leigh, Va. ,
23), 138.
Clark V. Eckstein (23 Pa. St. 507),
139.
Clark V. Fairly (30 Mo. App. 335),
142.
Clark V. Fletcher (1 Allen, 53), 136.
Clark V. Freeman (35 Pa. St. 133),
139, 139a.
Clark V. Grant (3 Wend., N. Y., 139),
375.
Clark V. Hart (49 Ala. 86), 205.
Clark V. Hoffaker (36 Mo. 364), 68.
Clark V, Lancaster (36 Md. 196), 321.
Clark V. MoNeal (114 N. Y. 289; 21
N. E. Rep. 405), 309.
Clark V. Miller (4 "Wend. 628), 336.
Clark V. Owens (18 N. Y. 434), 53,
107.
Clark V. Rhoades (2 Heisk., Tenn.,
206), 140.
Clark V. Ryan (Ala., 1893, 11 S. Rep.
22), 366.
Clark V. Sherman (5 Wash. St. 681),
20.
Clark V. Stansbury (49 Md. 346), 223.
Clark V. State (13 Ohio St. 483), 197.
Clark V. State (16 S. E. Rep. 96; 90
Ga. 448), 23.
Clark V. State (87 Ala. 71), 346.
Clark V. Thompson (47 111. 25), 232.
Clark V. Trinity Church (5 Watts &
S. 266), 144.
Clark V. Vance (15 Wend. 193), 124.
Clark Y. Waite (13 Mass. 439), 73.
Clark V. Woodruff (83 N. Y. 218),
221.
Clark V. Zelgler (85 Ala. 154; 4 S.
Rep. 669), 353.
Clark's Ex'rs v. Cochran (3 Mart.,
La., 353, 360), 133.
Clark's Ex'rs v. Riemsdyk (9 Cranch,
153), 76.
Clarke v. Bank (10 Ark. 516), 242.
Clarke v. Canfleld (3 McCart., N. J.,
119), 233.
Clarke v. MoAulifEe(81 Wis. 344; 51
N. W. Rep. 83), 262.
Clarke v. Rice (15 R I. 132; 33 Atl.
Rep. 301), 148.
Clarke v. Van Court (51 Neb. 756), 8.
Clarke, Ex parte (2 Dea. & Ch. 99),
287.
Clarkson v. Woodhouse (5 T. R. 412),
116.
Clary v. Clary (2 Ired., N. C, 78),
197.
Clavey v. Lord (87 Cal. 413), 376.
Clay V. Alderson (10 N. Y. 49), 140.
Clay V. Robinson (7 W. Va. 350), 249.
Clay V. State (Tex., 1893, 23 S. W.
Rep. 973), 282.
Clay V. Williams (2 Munf. 105, 122),
173.
Clayton v. Nugent (13 M. & W. 206),
318.
Clayton v. State (24 Atk. 16), 150a.
Clayton v. State (31 Tex. Crim. App.
489; 22 S. W. Rep. 404), 89, 95,
350.
Cleaves v. Foss (4 Greenl., Me., 1),
268.
Cleaves v. Lord (3 Gray, Mass., 66,
71), 21,
Clem V. State (33 Ind. 418), 352.
Clemens v. BuUen (Mass., 1893, 34
N. E. Rep. 173), 35;
Clemens v. Meyer (44 La. Ann. 390 ;
10 S. Rep. 797), 141.
Clements v. Hunt (1 Jones, N. C,
400), 53.
Clements V. McGinn (Cal., 1893, 33
Pao. Rep. 930), 317.
Clements v. State (21 Tex. App. -258),
33.
Clendenning v, Clymer (17 Ind. 155),
215.
xlviii
TABLE 0¥ CASES.
Cleveland v. Newson (45 Mich. 62),
233.
Cleveland, C, C. & I. Ry. Co. v. Clos-
ser (136 Ind. 348), 73o.
Cleveland, C, C. & I. K. R. v.
Newell (104 Ind. 269), 52.
Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Aherns (42 111.
App. 434), 367.
Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Perkins (17
Mich. 296), 30.
Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Wynant (Ind.,
1893, 34 N. E. Rep, 569), 366, 367.
Clever v. Bilberry (116 Pa. St. 431),
56.
Cleverly v. Cleverly (134 Mass. 314),
220.
Click V. Hamilton (7 Rich., S. C, 65),
73a.
Clifford V. Mayfer (Ind., 1893, 33 N.
E. Rep. 137), 33.
Clift V. Moses (112 N. Y. 426; 31
N. Y. State Rep. 777), 309.
Clifton V. Granger (Iowa, 1893, 53
N. W. Rep. 316), 10.
Clingman v. Irvine (40 111. App. 606),
333.
Clink V. Gunn (90 Mich. 135; 51
N. W. Rep. 193), 349.
Clinton v. Estes (30 Ark. 216), 208.
Clinton v. Howard (43 Conn. 394),
188.
Close V. Olney (1 Denio, 319), 354.
Close V. Samm (37 Iowa, 507), 344.
Close V. Stuyvesant (133 111. 607; 34
N. E. Rep. 868), 144.
Cloud V. Calhoun (10 Rich., S. C.
Eq„ 358), 304.
, Clouston V. Gray (48 Kan. 31), 282.
Cluff V. Mut. Ben. Ins. Co. (13 Allen,
Mass., 308), 330.
CIuggaRe V. Swan (4 Binn. 150), 58.
Cluverius v. Cora. (81 Va. 787), 102.
Coal R. C. Co. V. Jones (137 111. 379;
20 N. E. Rep. 89), 334.
Coals V. Sulan (46 Kan. 341), 333.
Cobb V. Covenant Mut. Ben. Assoc.
(153 Mass. 176; 36 N. E. Rep.
330), 11.
Eeferenoea are to sections.
Cobb V. Dortch (53 Ga. 584), 77, 314.
Cobb V. Johnson (3 Sneed, Tenn,,
73), 73a. V
Cobb V. Malone (86 Ala. 571 ; 8 S. Rep.
693), 37.
Cobb V. O'Neal (2 Sneed, Tenn., 438),
214.
Coble V. State (31 Ohio St. 100), 333.
Coburn v. Ellenwood (4 N. H. 99),
363.
Cochran v. Ammon (16 111. 316), 306.
Cochran v. Bartell (91 Mo. 655; 8 S.
W. Rep. 854), 315.
Cochran v. Jones (85 Ga. 678; 11 S.
E. Rep. 811), 11.
Cochran v. "Ward (Ind., 1893, 39 N.
E. Rep. 795), 141.
Cockerill v. Stafford (103 Mo. 57),
153.
Cockrill V. Hall (76 Cal. 193; 18Pac.
Rep. 318), 343, 354.
Codman v. Verm. etc. Co. (17
Blatchf., U. S., 3), 376.
Codmon v. Caldwell (31 Me. 560), 60.
Coe v. Turner (57 Conn. 937), 71.
Cofa v. Sohening (Ala., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 138), 147.
Coghlanv. Railroad (12 S. Ct. 150;
142 U. S. 101), 343.
Coffee V. State (35 Fla. 501 ; 6 S. Rep.
493), 90.
Coffey V. Procter Coal Co. (Ky., 1893,
20 S. W. Rep. 286), 377.
Coffin V. Hydraulic Co. (136 N. Y.
655; 32 N. E. Rep. 1076), 350.
Coffin V. Jones (13 Pick. 441), 168.
Cogshall V. Roller Miller Co. (48 Kan.
480), 186.
Cogswell V. West St. & N. E. Elev.
Ry. Co. (3 Pac. Rep. 411), 374.
Cohen V. Cont. L. Ins. Co. (69 N. Y.
308), 178.
Cohen v. State (11 Tex. App. 633),
324.
Cohen v. State (50 Ala. 108), 6.
Cohen v. Teller (93 Pa. St. 133), 133.
Coit V. Starkweather (8 Conn. 289),
128.
TABLE OF CASES.
xlix
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Coit V. Tracy (8 Conn. 368), 68.
Colburn v. Groton (N. H., 1894, 28
Atl. Eep. 95), 75.
Colclough V. Niland (68 Wis. 809;
'33 N. W. Eep. 119), 336.
Colclough V. Smith (15 Ir. Ch. 347),
53.
Cole V. Blunt (3 Bosw., N. Y., 116),
314.
Cole V. Clark (3 Wis. 333), 198.
Cole V. Cole (41 Md. 301), 363.
Cole V. Cole (33 Me. 548), 76,
Cole V. Jessup (10 N. Y. 96; 9 Barb.
395), 337.
Cole V. Lake (54 N. H. 378), 317.
Cole V. Lake Shore, etc. Co. (Mich. ,
1893, 54 N. W. Eep. 638), 193,
351.
Cole V. National Soh. Furn. Co. (45
111. App. 373), 380. .
Coleman v. Com. (35 Gratt., Va.,
865), 148, 317.
Coleman v. Eoss (46 Pa. St. 180), 304.
Coleman V. State (111 Ind. 563; 13
N. E. Eep. 100), 108.
Coleman v. State (63 N. Y. 93), 840.
Coleman v. State (31 Tex. App. 530 ;
3 S. W. Eep. 859), 33.
Coleman v. State (44 Tex. 109), 334.
Coleman v. White (48 Ind. 439), 118.
Coleman, In re (11 N. Y. 330), 53.
Coler V. County (N. M„ 1893, 37 Pac.
Eep. 619), 335.
Coles V. Brown (10 Paige, 536), 333.
Coles V. State (75 Ind. 511), 197.
Coles V. Yorks (36 Minn. 388), 115.
Colgan V. Philips (7 Eich., S. C, 359),
71.
Collar V. Collar (86 Mich. 507; 49 N.
W. Eep. 551), 346.
Collar V. Potter (88 Mich. 549), 340.
CoUender v. Dinsmore (55 N. Y. 303),
318.
CoUett V. Keith (4 Esp. 313), 75.
Collett V. Smith (143 Mass. 473), 67,
68.
Collier v. Mokes (3 C. & K. 1013), 75.
Collier v. Society (8 B. Mon. 68), 343. I
Collier v. State (30 Ark. 86), 843.
Collier v. White (Ala., 1893, 13 S.
Eep. 385), 88.
Collins V. Ball (83 Tex. 259), 13, 140.
Collins V. Burlington, etc. Co. (83
Iowa, 346; 49 N. W. Eep. 848),
11.
Collins V. Collins (51 Miss. 511), 138.
Collins V. Com. (12 Bush, 271), 131.
Collins V. Driscoll (34 Conn. 43), 830.
Collins V. Elliot (1 Harr. & J. 3), 138.
Collins V. Gilbert (94 U. S. 753), 230.
Collins V. Glass (46 Mo. App. 278), 8,
374.
Collins V. Mack (31 Ark. 684), 167.
Collins V. People (98 El. 584), 334.
Collins V. Eiohart (14 Bush, Ky,,
631), 361.
Collins V. State (24 Tex. App. 141),
89.
Collins V. Valleau (79 Iowa, 636; 43
N. W. Eep. 284; 44 id. 904), 143.
Collins V. Waters (54 111. 485), 52.
Collison V. Curling (9 CI. & Fin. 88),
331.
Colloway v. Cassart (45 Ark. 41), 288.
Colnen v. Orr (71 Cal. 48), 142.
Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United
States (123 U. S. 317), 250.
Colorado IJfid. Ey. v. O'Brien (16
Colo. 819), 198.
Colquitt V. Thomas (8 Ga. 868), 73a.
Colson V. Bouzey (6 Greenl., Me,,
474), 144.
Colt V. Eves (12 Conn. 243), 69.
Colt V. McConnell (116 Ind. 356; 19
N. E. Rep. 106), 171.
Coltraue v. Lamb (109 N. C. 309; 13
S. E. Eep. 784), 135.
Columbus V. Billingmeier (7 Ohio
Cir. Ct. Eep. 136), 344.
Columbus, etc. Co. v. Semmes (27
Ga. 283), 7.
Columbus, etc. v. Tillman (79 Ga.
607; 5S. E. Rep. 135), 130.
Colvin V. Peabody (155 Mass. 104;
89 N. E. Eep. 59), 11.
Colwell V. Brower (75 111. 516), 254.
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Combs V. Winchester (39 N. H. 1),
341.
Comfort V. Kittle (81 Iowa, 179),
380.
Com. Bank v. Bank (4 Hill, N. Y.,
516), 142.
Com. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust
Co. (112 U. S. 354), 178.
Commissioners v. Glass (17 Ohio,
343), 136.
Commissioners v. Trustees (107 111.
489), 353.
Com. V. Abbott (13 Meto. 123, 124),
11.
Com. V. Ackert (133 Mass. 402), 90.
Com. V. Andrews (143 Mass. 23),
139a.
Com. V. Baker (39 N. E. Rep. 513 ;
155 Mass. 387), 333.
Com. V. Balken (33 Pick. 281), 147.
Com. V. Barry (8 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep.
316), 346.
Com. V. Beckley (3 Mete, Mass.,
330), 33.
Com. v. Black (108 Mass. 296), 101.
Com. V. Bloss (116 Mass. 56), 241.
Com. V. Bosworth (33 Pick. 397, 399),
334.
Com. V. Briant (142 Mass. 463), 335.
Com. V. Brigham (147 Mass. 414), 80.
Com. V. Brown (14 Gray, Mass., 419),
39.
Com. V. Brown (131 Mass. 69, 70), 39,
188, 189.
Com. V. Brown (149 Mass. 35), 93.
Com. V. Brown (150 Mass. 330), 93,
95.
Com. V. Brown (130 Mass. 379), 333.
Com. V. Buccieri (153 Pa. St. 535 ; 26
Atl. Rep. 238), 197.
Com, V. Bush (3 Duv,, Ky., 264), 320.
Com. V. Buzzell (16 Pick. 157), 350.
Com. V. Byron (14 Gray, 31), 341.
Com. V. Call (21 Pick. 515), 79.
Com. V. Campbell (155 Mass. 137,
537; 30 N. E. Rep. 72), 8, 93.
Com. V. Caponi (155 Mass. 534; 30
N. E. Rep. 83), 33, 166.
Com. V. Cary (13 Cush., Mass., 246),
103.
Com. V. Casey (11 Cush,, Mass., 417),
103.
Com. V. Castles (9 Gray, 121), 138.
Com. V. Chaney (148 Mass. 8), 333.
Com. V. Chase (147 Mass. 597), 334.
Com. V. Clancy (154 Mass. 138; 37
N. E. Rep. 1001), 337.
Com. V. Clark (130 Pa. St. 650; 1&
Atl. Rep. 988), 93.
Com. V. Cleary (33 Atl. Rep. 1110;
30 W. N. "c. 1 ; 148 Pa. St. 26),
346.
Com. V. Cleary (153 Mass. 491), 168.
Com. V. Coe (115 Mass. 481), 13, 139,
140.
Com. V. Cohen (137 Mass. 383), 137.
Com. V. Coy (157 Mass. 300; 32 N. E.
Rep. 4), 33, 93.
Com. V. Crowninshield (10 Pick. 497),
69.
Com. V. CuUen (111 Mass. 435), 90.
Com. V. Cunningham (104 Mass. 545),
186.
Com. V. Curran (119 Mass. 306), 350.
Com. V. Curtis (97 Mass. 574), 9.
Com. V. Dam (107 Mass. 210), 7.
Com. V. Damon (136 Mass. 441), 354a.
Com. V. Dana (3 Met. 337, 839), 127.
Com. V. Dance (8 Cush. 384), 322.
Com. V. Daniel (4 Pa. L. J. R. 49),
286.
Com. V. Densmore (12 Mass. 535), 79.
Com. V. Desmond (103 Mass. 445),
239.
Com. V. Dill (156 Mass. 236), 85.
Com. V. Dill (156 Mass. 266; 30 N. E.
Rep. 1016), 840.
Com. V. Donlican(114 Mass. 257), 188.
Com. V. Downing (4 Gray, 29, 80),
146, 333.
Com. V. Drake (15 Mass. 161), 177.
Com. V. Drake (134 Mass. 21), 334.
Com. V. Dudley (10 Mass. 403), 365.
Com. V. Dunlop (89 Va. 481 ; 16 S. E.
Rep. 373), 240.
Com. V. Emmons (98 Mass. 6), 845.
TABLE OF OASES.
u
Beferenoes are to sections.
Com. V. Evans (101 Mass. S5), 156.
Com. V. Fairchell (1 Brewst, Pa.,
566), 201.
Com. V. Feely (3 Va. Cas. 1), 281.
Com. V. Felch (133 Mass. 22), 51, 53.
Com. V. Ford (111 Mass. g94), 338.
Com. V. Ford (14 Gray, 399), 147.
Com. V. Ford (146 Mass. 131 ; 15 N,
E. Eep. 153), 333.
Com. V. Fox (1 S. W. Rep. 896), 349.
Com. V. Gerade (145 Pa. St. 289),
231.
Com. V. Goortnow (154 Mass. 487),
346.
Com. V. Gorey (1 Gray, Mass., 463),
95.
Com. V. Gorham (99 Mass. 420), 333.
Com. V. Gould (158 Mass. 499; 33 N.
E. Rep. 656), 33, 354a.
Com. V. Griffin (110 Mass, 181), 80,
168.
Com. V. Hackett (3 Allen, Mass., 136),
57.
Com. V. Hall (65 Mass. 137), 176.
Com. V. Halley (13" Allen, 587), 337.
Com. V. Haney (187 Mass. 455), 101,
103.
Com. V. Hanley (140 Mass. 457), 346.
Com. V. Hanson (1 Nott & McC,
S. C, 554), 128.
Com. V. Harmon (4 Barr, Pa., 269),
4, 89, 90.
Com. V. Haskell <140 Mass. 128),
384.
Com. V. Hawkins (3 Gray, 463), 234.
Com. V. Hayes (145 Mass. 289; 14 N.
E. Rep. 151), 168.
Com. V. HefEron (103 Mass. 161), 108.
Com. V. Hersey (84 Mass. 173), 330.
Com. V. Hill (14 Mass. 207), 316.
Com. V. Hill (65 Mass. 137), 176.
Com. V. Hills (10 Cush. 533), 316.
Com. V. Holmes (137 Mass. 434), 334.
Com. V. Holt (146 Mass. 38), 195.
Com. V. Horten (9 Pick. 206), 156.
Com. V. Hourigan (89 Ky. 305; 13 S.
W. Rep. 550), 840.
Com. V. Howe (9 Gray, 110), 91.
Com. V. Howe (3 Allen, Mass., 153),
95.
Com. V. Hudson (97 Mass. 565), 9.
Com. V. Ingraham (7 Gray, 46), 353.
Com. v. Jeffries (89 Mass. 548), 330.
Com. V. Jones (155 Mass. 170; 29 N.
E. Rep. 467), 349.
Com. V. Kane (108 Mass. 433), 36.
Com. V. Keefe (140 Mass. 301 ; 4 N.
E. Rep. 576), 33.
Com. V. Kendall (118 Mass. 210), 10.
Com. V. Kenney (12 Mete. 335), 79.
Com. V. King (150 Mass. 233 ; 33 N.
E. Repl 905), 145, 339.
Com. V. Knapp (10 Pick., Mass.,
477), 833.
Com. V. Knapp (9 Pick. 496). 91, 344.
Com. V. Kneeland (30 Pick. 339), 237.
Com. V. Lamon (29 N. E. Rep. 467;
155 Mass. 168), 346.
Com. V. Laughlin (11 Cush. 598), 28.
Com. V. Leonard (140 Mass. 470, 479;
4 N. E. Rep. 96), 10.
Com. V. Lesher (17 S. & E., Pa.,
164), 386.
Com. V. Lester (129 Mass. 101), 33.
Com. V. Locke (114 Mass. 288), 250.
Com. V. Lyden (113 Mass. 452), 341.
Com. V. Lynch (3 PittSb., Pa., 413),
331.
Com. V. Lynes (142 Mass. 577), 188,
319.
Com. V. Mahon (142 Pa. St. 417), 7.
Com. V. Malone (114 Mass. 295), 188.
Com. V. Marsh (10 Pick. 57), 306.
Com. V. Maxwell (3 Pick., Mass.,
350.
Com. V. Marzynski (149 Mass. 68),
341. '
Com. V. McCarthy (119 Mass. 354), 9.
Com. V, MoDermott (123 Mass. 441),
97.
Com. V. McDonald (110 Mass. 545),
354.
Com. V. McGrath (140 Mass. 296; 6
N. E. Rep. 515), 334.
Com. V. MoGuire (84 Ky. 57), 321.
Com. V. McKee (1 Gray, 63), 349.
lii
TABLE OF OASES.
Heferences are to seotiona.
Com. V. McLaughton (105 Mass, 460),
33.
Com. V. McMahon (145 Pa. St. 413),
6, 9.
Com. V. McManua (143 Pa. St. 64; 31
Atl. Rep. 1018), 11.
Com. V. Mead (13 Gray, Mass., 167),
176.
Com. V. Minor (89 Ky. 555; 13 S. W.
Eep. 5), 321.
Com. V. Moinehan (140 Mass. 463 ; 1
N. E. Rep. 59), 195.
Com, V. Morey (1 Gray, Mass., 461),
89.
Com. V. Morgan (107 Mass. 305), 854,
354a.
Com. V. Morgan (Mass., 1893, 34 N.
E. Rep. 458), 39.
Com. V. Morningstar (13 Pa. Co. Ct.
R. 34), 83.
Com. V. liiorrill (63 Mass. 571), 23.
Com. V. Mosier (135 Pa. St. 231 ; 19
Atl. Rep. 943), 350.
Com. V. Mosier (4 Barr, Pa., 364), 95.
Com. V. Mullen (150 Mass. 394; 33
N. E. Rep. 51), 346.
Com. V. Mullern (97 Mass. 545), 345a.
Com. V. Nagle (157 Mass. 554; 33 N.
E. Rep. 861), 10.
Com. V. Nefus (135 Mass. 533), 133,
139.
Com. V. Nichols (114 Mass. 385). 354a.
Cora. V. Peckham (3 Gray, Mass.,
514), 341.
Com. V. Penn (1 Pet. C. C. 496), 115.
Com. V. Phillips (11 Pick. 28), 146.
Com. V. Piper (130 Mass. 185, 188),
89, 193, 301.
Com. V. Pomeroy (117 Mass. 143),
349.
Com. V. Pratt (136 Mass. 463), 354.
Com. V. Price (10 Gray, Mass., 472),
323.
Com. V. Pm-dy (146 Mass. 138; 15
N. E. Rep. 364), 83.
Com V. Regan (105 Mass. 593), 354.
Com. V. Reynolds (14 Gray, Mass.,
87), 281.
Com. V. Richards (18 Pick. 464), 134.
Com. V. Riggs (14 Gray, 376), 33.
Com. V. Robinson (146 Mass. 371), 5, 7.
Com. V. Rogers (7 Met., Mass., 500X
188, 331.
Com. V. Rowell (146 Mass. 130; 15
N. E. Rep. 151), 33.
Com. V. Russell (156 Mass. 196; 30
N. E. Rep. 763), 9, 95.
Com. V. Samuel (3 Pick., Mass., 103),
350.
Com. V. Saulsbury (153 Pa. St. 554;
36 Atl. Rep. 610), 9.
Com. V. Sego (105 Mass. 310), 95.
Com. V. Shaw (4 Cush. 593), 350, 354,
354a.
Com. V. Shepherd (3 Pa. Dist. Rep.
345), 10.
Com. V. Smith (3 Gray, Mass., 516),
316.
Com. V. Smith (9 Mass. 109), 174.
Com. V. Smith (119 Mass. 305), 89.
Com. V. Smith (6 S. & R., Pa., 567),
139.
Com. V. Snowden (Ky., 1893, 17
S. W. Rep. 305), 176.
Com. V. Stevenson (143 Mass. 146;
8 N. E. Rep. 361), 335.
Com. V. Strasser (153 Pa. St. 431), 10.
Com. V. Sturtivant (117 Mass. 133),
188, 193, 194.
Com. V. Sullivan (150 Mass. 315; 33
N. E. Eep. 47), 333.
Com. V. Switzer (134 Pa. St. 383; 36
W. N. C. 46), 38a, 145.
Com. V. Talbot (3 Allen, Mass., 161),
236.
Com. V. Taylor (5 Cush., Mass., 606),
89, 95.
Com. V. Taylor (133 Mass. 261), 193.
Com. V. Thompson (99 Mass, 444), 87.
Com. V. Thompson (11 Allen, Mass.,
25), 233.
Com. V. Thompson (Mass., 1893, 33
N. E. Rep. 910), 39.
Com. V. Thyng (134 Mass. 191), 348.
Com. V. Tibbetts (157 Mass. 519; 83
N. E, Rep. 910), 39,
TABLE OF CASES.
liii
Beferences are to sections.
Com. V. Trefethen (157 Mass. 180; 31
N. E. Rep. 961), 84.
Com. V. Vass (3 Leigh, 786), 103.
Com. V. Vose{157 Mass. 393; 33 N.
E. Eep. 355), 50.
Com. V. "Ward (157 Mass. 483; 33 N.
E. Eep. 663), 334.
Com. V. Webster (5 Cush. 831), 5, 6,
23, 131, 139, 344.
Com. V. Whitaker (131 Mass. 224),
234.
Com. V. White (145 Mass. 393), 9.
Com. V. White (147 Mass. 76), 176.
Com. V. Whitman (131 Mass. 361),
345.
Com. V. Williams (105 Mass. 63),
140.
Cora. V. Wilson (1 Gray, 337), 145.
Com. V. Wright (1 Cush. 65), 32.
Com. V. Wright (107 Mass. 403), 381.
Com. V. Zelt (138 Pa. St. 615; 21 Atl.
Eep. 7), 350.
Commercial Ice Co. v. Kiefer (36 III.
App. 466), 308.
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Ever-
hart (88 Va. 953; 14 S. B. Eep.
836), 150a.
Comp. V. Brown (48 Ind. 575), 253.
Compton V. Blexham (2 Coll. 301),
150.
Comstock V. Carnley (4 Blatch. C. C.
58), 33.
Comstock V. Hadlyme (8 Conn. 354),
354.
Comstock V. Smith (36 Mich. 306),
83, 129.
Comstock V. Smith (20 Mich. 338), 7.
Conde v. Wiltsie (131 N. Y. 647; 30
N. E. Eep. 866), 11.
Cone V. Cone (107 Mass. 385), 309.
Conger v. Weaver (6 Cal. 548), 238.
Congress, etc. Co. v. Edgar (99 U. S.
657), 198.
Conklin v. Boyd (46 Mich. 56), 329.
Conkling v. Hannibal, etc. Co. (54
Mo. 385), 199.
Conley v. Jennings (32 111, App. 547),
67.
Conley v. State (85 N. Y. 618), 389.
Connell v. O'Neil (154 Pa. St. 582),
366.
Connelly v. O'Connor (17 N. Y. State
Eep. 261), 309.
Conner v. State (23 Tex. App. 378),
33.
Connington v. Ludlow (1 Met., Ky.,
395), 143a.
Connors v. People (50 N. Y. 340),
354a.
Conn. Eiver Bank v. Albee (64 Vt.
571), 346.
ConoUy v. Pardon (1 Paige, 291), 323.
Conrad v. Bank (10 Mart. 700), 140.
Conrad v. Ithaca (16 N. Y. 158), 198.
Conrad v. Mass. S. Co. (4 Allen,
Mass., 20), 77.
Consequav. Willings (1 Pet. 235), 243.
Consual v. Sheldon (35 Neb. 347 ; 53
N. W. Eep. 1104), 7, 128, 142.
Consumers' Coal Co. v. Schaefer (81
111. App. 364), 79.
Consumers' Gas Co. v. Harless (131
Ind. 446; 29 N. E. Eep. 1062), 82.
Continental Bank v. Bank of Com-
monwealth (50 N. Y. 573), 83.
Continental Bank v. Wells (73 Wis.
353), 243.
Continental Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co.
(51 Fed. Rep. 884), 9, 58.
Converse v. Blumrich (14 Mich. 109),
73o.
Converse v. Hobbs (64 N. H. 43), 337.
Converse v. Lamghshow (81 Tex.
275), 330.
Converse v. Wead (143 111. 132; 31 N.
E. Eep. 314), 218.
Conway v. Vizzard (122 Ind. 266), 51.
Conway, In re (58 Hun, 16), 269.
Cook V. Barr (44 N. Y. 156), 76.
Cook V. Decker (63 Mo. 328), 237.
Cook V. Grange (18 Ohio, 526), 168. '
Cook V. Hawkins (16 S. W. Eep. 8;
54 Ark. 423), 216.
Cook V. Knott (28 Tex. 85), 135.
Cook V. Larson (47 Kan. 70; 27 Pac.
Eep. 113), 282.
liv
TABLE OF OASES.
Eeferences are to sections.
Cook V. Remington (6 Mod. 337),
304.
Cook V. Rice (91 Cal. 664), 151.
Cook V. Shorthill (82 Iowa, 277), 362.
Cook V. Smith (1 Vroom, 30 N. J.,
387), 139.
Cook V. State (18 Barb., N. Y., 407),
357.
Cook V. State (18 S. W. Rep. 412; 30
Tex. App. 607), 330.
Cook V. State (Tex., 1893, 23 S, W.
Rep. 23), 89.
Cook V. Stearns (11 Mass. 533), 263.
Cook V. Stout (47 111. 530), 121.
Cook V. Tavener (41 Mo. App. 642),
234.
Cook V. United States (11 S. Ct. 268;
138 V. S. 157), 313.
Cooke V. Maxwell (3 Stark. 183), 175,
330.
Cooley V. Foltz (85 Mich. 47; 48 N.
W. Rep. 176), 178.
Coon V. State (13 Sm. & M. 246), 93.
Coon V. Swan (30 Vt. 6), 169.
Coonrod v. Madden (126 Ind. 197; 25
N. E. Rep. 1103), 35, 136.
Cooper V. Andrews (44 Mich. 94), 77.
Cooper V, Dedrick (33 Barb. 516), 331.
Cooper V. Finke (38 Minn. 3), 208.
Cooper V. James (79 Ga. 379 ; 4 S. E.
Rep. 916), 76.
Cooper V. Morrell (4 Yeates, Pa.,
341), 60.
Cooper V. Perry (7 Pac. Rep. 946 ; 16
Colo. 436), 379.
Cooper V. Reaney (4 Minn. 538), 330.
Cooper V. Reynolds (10 Wall., U. S.,
317), 15.5.
Cooper V. State (33 Tex. 336), 193,
193.
Copeland v. Koontz (135 Ind. 126),
308.
Coppv. Hollins (56 Hun, 640; 9 N.
Y. S. 57), 354.
Copperman v. People (56 N. Y.
591), 9.
Corbett v. Gibson (16 Blatchf. C. C.
334), 384.
Corbett v. Norcross (35 N. Y. 99>,
362.
Corbett V. State (5 Ohio Cir. Ct. 155)y
97.
Corbin v. Sistrunk (19 Ala. 203), 308.
Cordas v. Morrison (33 N. Y. S. 1076),
382.
Corinth v. Lincoln (34 Me. 810), 57.
Cormack v. Walcott (17 Am. & Eng.
Corp. Cases, 309), 140.
Cormack v. Western White Bronze
Co. (77 Iowa, 32), 60.
Corn V. Rosenthal (20 N. Y. S. 632 ;
1 Misc. Rep. 168), 313.
Corn Exch. Bank v. Nassau Bank (91
N. Y. .74), 316.
Cornelius v. Smith (55 Mo. 528), 346.
Cornett v. Williams (20 Wall., U. S.,
336), 33.
Corning v. Gould (16 Wend. 531),
229.
Corning v. Walker (100 N. Y. 550),
308.
Con-igan v. Peroni (48 N. J. Eq. 607),
250.
Cosmer's Adm'r v. Smith (36 W. Va.
788; 15 S. E. Rep. 977), 358.
Cosper V. Nesbit (45 Kan. 457), 306.
Costello V. Crowell (189 Mass. 588),
139, 337.
Costen V. McDowell (107 N. C. 546),
120.
Costigan v. Lunt (137 Mass. 355),
120.
Costigan v. Mohawk, etc. Co. (3
Denio, N. Y., 609), 247.
Cothran v. Forsyth (68 Ga. 560), 254.
Cotton V. State (87 Ala. 75; 6 S. Rep.
372), 5, 6, 91, 346.
Cotton V. Ulmer (45 Ala. 378), 281.
Coubrough v. Adams (70 Cal. 874 ; 11
Pac. Rep. 634), 371.
Coulson V, Walton (9 Pet. 63), 107,
139.
Coulter V. Amer. Exp, Co. (56 N. Y.
585), 347.
Counselman v. Hitchcock (142 U. S.
547), 381.
TABLE OF CASES.
Iv
Beferences are to seotions.
Countryman's Estate, In re (151 Pa.
St. 577; 25 Atl. Rep. 146; SI W.
N. C. 148), 369.
Course v. Head (4 Dall. 33; 13 S. Ct.
195), 342.
Courtney v. State (5 Ind. App. 356 ;
33 N. E. Rep. 335), 9.
Cousins V. Jackson (53 Ala. 265), 308.
Cousins V. Partridge (79 Cal. 324),
376.
Couts V. Neer (70 Tex. 468 ; 9 S. W.
Rep. 46), 381.
Coveney v. Tannahill (1 Hill, 33),
173.
Cover V. Manaway (115 Pa. St. 345),
136.
Cover V. Myers (75 Md. 406; 23 Atl.
Rep. 856), 247.
Covert V. Sebern (73 Iowa, 564), 332.
Covey V. Campbell (52 Ind. 158), 188.
Covington, etc. Road v. Ingles (15
B. Mon., Ky., 637), 73a.
Covington Draw. Co. v. Shepherd
(30 How., U. S., 237), 343.
Cowan V. Kinney (33 Ohio St. 438),
1,8.
Cowan V. Prowse (19 S. W. Rep. 407,
Ky., 1893), 31.
Cowan V. Third Ave. Ry. Co. (9 N.
Y. S. 610), 350.
Coward v. Clanton (79 Cal. 39), 76.
Coward v. Dillinger (56 Ind. 59), 357.
Cowden v. Reynolds (13 S. & R. 381),
347.
Co wen V. Eartherly (95 Ala. 834; 11
S. Rep. 195), 362.
Cowing V. Altraan (71 N. Y. 438),
214.
Cowles V. Hayes (71 N. C. 331), 343.
Cowley V. People (83 N. Y. 464), 38a,
188.
Cowman v. Rogers (73 Md. 403), 238.
Cox V. Com. (125 Pa. St. 108), 324.
Cox V. Cox (91 N. C. 256), 220.
Cox V. Dill (85 Ind. 334), 141.
Cox V. Ellsworth (36 N. W. Rep. 460;
18 Neb. 664), 233.
Cox V. Hart (145 U. S. 876), 283.
Cox V. Hill (3 Ohio St. 411), 353.
Cox V. Jones (53 Ga. 438), 142.
Cox V. Jones (110 N. C. 309; 14 S. E.
Rep. 783), 380.
Cox V. Mounlford (66 Ga. 63), 150a.
Cox V. People (19 Hun, 840), 89.
Cox V.Woods (67 Cal. 817; 7 Pac.
Rep. 732), 323.
Coye V. Leach (8 Mete, Mass., 371),
233.
Coyle V. Baltimore, etc. R. Co. (11
W. Va. 94), 73a.
Coyne v. Manhattan Ry. Co, (62
Hun, 620), 188, 192.
Cozard v. Hinman (6 Bosw. 8), 208.
Cozine v. Walter (55 N. Y. 304), 150a.
Cozzens v. Higgina (33 How. Pr. 439),
88a, 441.
Craig V. Alvarson (6 J. J. Marsh.,
Ky., 609), 69.
Craig V. Brown (1 Pec. 852), 148.
Craig V. Gilbreth (47 Me. 416), 78a.
Craig V. State (18 S. W. Rep. 297,
Tex., 1893), 89.
Craig V. Taylor (6 B. Mon., Ky., 459),
262.
Grain v. Huntington (81 Tex. 614),
107, 130.
Cram v. Cram (33 Vt. 15, 40), 166,
197.
Cramer v. Burlington (4 Iowa, 213),
236.
Cramer v. Shriner (18 Md. 89), 35.
Cranan v. New Orleans (16 La. Ann.
374), 335.
Crandall v. Gallup (13 Conn, 565), 76.
Crandall v. Sterling (1 Colo. 106), 242.
Crane v. Dexter (5 Wash. St. 479),-
182.
Crane v. Library Ass'n (39 N. J. L.
303), 309.
Crane v. Northfield (38 Vt. 126), 198.
Crane v. Ring (48 Kan. 61), 24.
Crane Lumber Co. v. Otter Creek
Lumber Co. (79 Mich. 307; 44 N.
W. Rep. 788), 60.
Crappell v. State (71 Ala. 324), 316.
Crary v. Sprague (12 Wend. 41), 131.
Ivi
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferences are to sections.
Crawford v. Abraham (3 Oreg. 163),
376.
Crawford v. Elliot (1 Houst., Del.,
467), 333.
Crawford v. Neal (144 U. S. 585;
IS S. Ct. 759), 136.
Crawford v. Williams (48 Iowa, 349),
189.
Creamer v. Stevenson (15 Md. Ill),
314.
Crease v. Barrett (1 C, M. & R. 928),
116.
Cressena v. Sowers (36 W. N. C, 133),
186.
Creston v. Walker (36 Iowa, 205),
354.
Creswell v. State (14 Tex. App. 1), 9.
Crew V. Saunders (3 Str. 1005), 140.
Crew V. State (Tex., 1893, 23 S. W.
Rep. 973), 383.
Cribben v. Deall (31 Oreg. 311 ; 37
Pac. Rep. 1046), 138.
Crimmins v. Crimmins (43 N. J. Eq.
87). 308.
Crist V. State (31 Ala. 137), 141.
Crocker v. Agenbrod (133 Ind. 585),
347.
Crocker v. Duncan (6 Blackf., Ind.,
278), 286.
Crockett v. Crockett (73 Ga. 647), 233.
Crodspn v. Leonard (13 Cranch, 433),
158.
Crohen v. Ewers (39 111. App. 34),
199.
Cromer v. Bornest (37 S. C. 436;
3 S. E. Rep. 849), 36.
Crommett v. Pearson (18 Me. 344),
305.
Cromwell v. Sac Co. (94 U. S. 351),
145.
Crookham v. State (5 W. Va. 510),
103.
Crooks V. Whitford (47 Mich. 283),
323.
Crosby v. Mason (33 Conn. 482), 310.
Crosby v. People (27 N. B. Rep. 49 ;
137 111. 325), 97.
Crose V. Rutledge (81 111. 266), 168.
Cross V. Bell (34 N. H. 85), 336.
Cross V. Cross (108 N. Y. 639; 15 N.
E. Rep. 333), 347.
Cross V. Cross (55 Mich. 380), 168.
Cross V. Kansas City (90 Mo. 13), 83.
Cross V. Martin (46 Vt. 14), 129.
Cross V. Railroad Co. (69 Mich. 363),
186, 336.
Cross V. Thompson (50 Kan. 627; 32
Pac. Rep. 357), 217.
Cross V. Williams (43 N. H. 332), 8.
Crossman v. Grossman (95 N. Y. 145),
30.
Croswell v. Labree (81 Me. 44), 138.
Crothers v. Acock (43 Mo. App. 818),
23.
Grotty V. Eagle's Adm'r (35 W. Va.
143 ; 18 S. E. Rep. 859), 74.
Crow V. Gleason (20 N. Y. S. 590;
65 Hun, 635), 371.
Crow V. Searcy (103 Mo. 975), 226.
Grow V. Watkins (48 Ark. 169), 70.
Growell v. Harvey (30 Neb. 570),
370.
Growell v. State (24 Tex. App. 304),
334.
Crumlish v, Wilmington (5 Del. Gh.
370), 77.
Crump v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 30 S. W.
Rep. 390), 101.
Crump V. Geriok (40 Miss. 765), 76.
Cuddy V. Brown (78 111. 415), 53.
CuUen V. Benim (37 Ohio St. 326),
310.
Cully V. Shirk (131 Ind. 76), 150a.
Gulp V. Steare (47 Kan. 746), 24.
Culver V. D wight (6 Gray, 444), 188.
Culver V. Marks (123 Ind. 554), 37, 60,
144.
Culver V. Scott, etc. Co. (55 N. W.
Rep. 553), 334.
Culverhouse v. Wertz (33 Mo. App.
24), 341.
Cumberland Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Giltman (48 N. J. L. 495; 7 Atl.
Rep. 434), 88.
Gumming v. Barber (99 N. C. 332),
313,
TABLE OF OASES.
Ivii
Beferences are to sections.
Cummings v. Arnold (3 Mete. 486),
314.
Cummings V. Powell (116 Mo. 473;
31 S. W. Rep. 1079), 308.
Cummings v. Putnam (19 N. H. 569),
214.
Cunard v. Manhattan (1 Misc. Rep.
151 ; 31 N. Y. S. 1181), 16.
Cundell v. Pratt (1 M. & Malk. 108),
354.
Cuneo V. Bessoni (63 Ind. 524), 190.
Cunningham v. Dwyer (33 Md. 319),
SOS.
Cunningham v. Gallegher (61 Wis.
170), 249.
Cunningham v. Minor (66 Ala, 533),
207.
Cunningham v. Railroad Co. (49 Fed.
Hep. 39), 193.
Cunningham v. Union Pac. R. Co.
(4 Utah, 206; 7 Pac. Rep. 795),
360.
Curd V. "Williams (Ky., 1893, 18 S.
W. Bep. 634), 346.
Curnep v. Mayer (79 N. Y. 511, 514),
84.
Curren v. Ampersee (Mich., 1893, 56
N. W. Rep. 87), 34.
Currier V. Richardson (63 \'t. 617),
146.
Curry v. Kurtz (33 Miss. 34), 69.
Curry v. White (51 Cal. 530), 69.
Curtis V. Aaronson (7 AtL Rep. 886 ;
49 N. J. L. 68), 115.
Curtis V. Belknap (6 Wash. 433),
138.
Curtis V. Chicago, etc. Co, (18 Wis.
812), 188.
Curtis V. Curtis (131 Ind. 489), 361.
Curtis V. Gano (36 N. Y. 426), 198.
Curtis V. Richards (1 Scott, N. R.,
155), 218.
Curtis V. Wilson (3 Tex. Civ. App.
646; 21S. W. Rep. 787), 308.
Gushing v. Babcock (38 Me. 452), 77.
Cushing V. Billings (3 Cush., Mass.,
158), 375.
Cushing V. Rice (46 Me. 303), 205.
Cushman v. Bonfleld (36 111. App.
436), 304.
Outhrell v. Cuthrell (101 Ind. 375),
213.
Cutler V. Rathhone (1 Hill, 205), 357.
Cutler V. Wright (23 N. Y. 472), 242.
Cutler V. Wright (W. N. 1890, p. 38),
281.
Cutter V. Waddingham (22 Mo. 281),
216.
Cutting V. Carter (29 Vt. 72), 77.
Cutts V. United States (1 Gall. 69),
138.
Cuyler v. Ferrill (1 Abb., U. S., 169),
340.
Cuyler v. McCartney (33 Barb., N,
Y, 165), 70.
D.
Daggett V. Shaw (5 Met.', Mass., 223),
115.
Dahlman v. Hammel (45 Wis. 466),
349.
Dail V. Moore (51 Mo. 589), 135, 136.
Daily v. Coons (64 Ind. 545), 75.
Daily v. Kinsler (31 Neb. 340; 47 N.
W. Rep. 1045), 246.
Daily v. N. Y. etc. Co. (32 Conn.
356), 139a.
Daily v. Sharkey (39 Mo. App. 518),
151.
Dainese v. Hall (91 U. S. 13), 343.
Dairs v. Furman (31 Kan. 131), 225.
Dais' Appeal (138 Pa, St. 572), 226.
Dale V. Livingstone (4 Wend. 558),
173.
Dale V. State (88 Ga. 552), 383.
Daley v. Hellman (63 Hun, 630),
383.
Dallas V. Chenault (Tex., 1891, 16 S.
W. Rep. 173), 353.
Dallmeyer v. Dallmeyer (Pa., 1888,
16 Atl. Rep. 72), 367.
Dalrymple v. Dalrymple (2 Hagg.
115, 144), 148. -
Dalton, Ex parte (44 Ohio St. 150),
388.
Iviii
TABLE OF CASES.
Heferences are to sections.
Daly V. Bernstein (38 Pac. Eep. 764,
N. M., 1893), 30.
Daly V. Maguire (6 Blatchf. 137),
38a.
Daly T. Melende (33 Neb. 852), 333.
Daly V. Multnomah Co. (14 Oreg. 30),
377.
Daly V. Wise (133 N. Y. 306), 232.
Damm v. Gow (88 Mich. 99), 318.
Daraon v. Granby (3 Pick., Mass.,
345), 368.
Dan V. Brown (4 Cow., N. Y., 433,
438), 67, 138.
Dana v. Fiedler (13 N. Y. 40), 217,
218.
Dana v. Hancock (30 Vt. 616), 314
Dana v. Newhall (13 Mass. 498), 138.
Dana v. Sessions (Vt., 1893, 36 Atl.
Eep. 585), 208.
Dane v. Tucker (4 Johns. 487), 176.
Danforth v. Mclntire (11 111. App.
447), 198.
Daniel v. Daniel (39 Pa. St. 191),
174.
Daniels v. Foster (36 Wis. 286), 309.
Daniels v. Woonsocket (11 R. I. 4),
75, 76.
Danielson v. Fuel Co. (55 Tex. 49),
143.
Danville, etc. Co. v. State (16 Ind.
456), 242.
Darby v. Ouseley (1 H. & N. 1), 80.
Darby v. Roberts (8 Tex. Civ. App.
437; 23S. W. Rep. 539), 75.
Darby v. State (33 Tex. App. 407),
101, 103.
Darby v. State (93 Ala. 9), 103.
Darcy v. McCarty (35 Kan. 732), 144.
Darling v. Westmoreland (53 N. H.
401), 8.
Darrah v. Watson (36 Iowa, 116),
148.
Darry v. People (10 N. Y. 138), 234.
Darst V. Bates (51 111. 439), 233.
Darst V. Murphy (119 111. 343), 333.
Dart V. Walker (3 Daly, K Y., 138),
69.
Dass Case (1 Gratt., Va., 557), 349.
Daub V. Engelback (109 111. 367), 76.
Davenport v. Gas Co, (43 Iowa, 301),
83.
Davenport v. Hannibal (108 Mo. 471 ;
18 S. W. Eep. 1133), 11.
Davenport v. Mahon (6 Kulp, Pa.,
350), 146.
Davenport v. MoKee (98 N. C. 500),
350.
Davey v. Lohrman (30 N. Y. S. 675),
349.
Daveyao v. Seller (Ky., 1893, 30 S.
W. Eep. 375), 380.
Davidson v. Arledge (97 N. C. 172),
115.
Davidson v. Cornell (133 N. Y. 238),
53.
Davidson v. Felder (3 Tex. Civ. App.
273; 31 S. W. Eep. 714), 871.
Davidson v. Murphy (13 Conn. 817),
146.
Davidson v. Petioolas (34 Tex. 37),
344.
Davidson v. Wheeler (17 E. I. 38),
370.
Davie v. Briggs (7 Otto, 628), 233.
Davie v. Davis (108 N. C. 501 ; 13 S.
E. Eep. 240), 152.
Davies v. Lowndes (7 Scott, N. E.
214), 113.
Davis V. Agnew (67 Tex. 210), 136.
Davis V. Beazley (75 Va. 491), 135.
Davis V. California Pow. Works (84
Cal. 617), 341.
Davis V. Colburn (128 Mass. 377),
265.
Davis V. Dale (1 M. & M. 514), 839.
Davis V. Davis (32 N. Y. S. 191 ; 3
Misc. Eep. 549), 158.
Davis V. Evans (103 Mo. 164), 70.
Davis V. Fuller (12 Vt. 178), 58.
Davis V. Getchell (33 Neb. 792), 8.
Davis V. Goodrich (45 Vt. 36), 314.
Davis V. Graham (3 Colo. App. 310 ;
29 Pac. Rep. 1007), 350.
Davis V. Harnbell (Tex,, 1894, 24 S.
W. Rep. 972), 318.
Davis V. Hays (89 Ala. 568), 11.
TABLE OF CASES.
lix
Beferences are to sections.
Davis V. Hopkins (18 Colo. 153 ; 33
Pac. Eep. 70), 369.
Davis V. Hudson (39 Minn. 35), 233.
Davis V. Jenkins (Ky., 1893, 20 S.
W. Rep. 283), 137.
Davis V.Kline (9 S. W. Rep. 734;
96 Mo. 401), 134.
Davis V. Mann (43 111. App. 401),
877.
Davis V. McEnany (150 Mass. 451),
340.
Davis V. Moody (15 Ga. 175), 305.
Davis V. New York, L. E. & W. R.
R. Co. (69 Hun, 174), 198.
Davis V. Rich (3 How., N. Y., 86),
357.
Davis V. Rochester (66 Hun, 629), 72,
78a.
Davis V. Sanford (9 Allen, 216), 60,
Davis V. Shafer (50 Fed. Rep. ' 74),
123, 128.
Davis V. Simmons (25 Pac. Rep. 535),
75.
Davis V. State (85 Ind. 496), 188.
Davis V. State (31 Neb. 247; 47 N, W.
Rep. 854), 317.
Davis V. State (78 Ind. 15), 188.
Davis V. State (74 Ga. 869), 5, 7.
Davis V. State (88 Md. 15), 192.
Davis V. Stern (15 La. Ann. 177), 208.
Davis V. Stout (126 Ind. 12; 25 N. E.
Rep. 863), 205.
Davis V. Whitesides (1 Dana, Ky.,
177), 73a.
Davis V. Willis (67 Hun, 650), 333.
Davis, etc. Co. v. Riverside Co. (84
Wis. 263; 54 N. W. Rep. 506),
283.
Davy V. Faw (7 Cranch, U. S., 171),
77.
Dawes v. Shedd (15 Mass. 69), 73.
Dawley v. Ayers (23 Cal. 108), 167.
Daws V. Glasgow (1 Pin., Wis., 171),
356.
Dawson V. Coston (18 Colo. 493; 83
Pac. Rep. 189), 354a.
Dawson v. Landreaux (29 La. Ann.
363), 739.
.Dawson v. Mayal (45 Minn. 408), 53.
Dawson v. Parham (55 Ark. 286), 143.
Dawson v. Schloss (93 Cal. 134), 79,
369.
Day V. Cooley (118 Mass. 524), 348.
Day V. Gidjum (131 Mass. 31), 168.
Day V. Sharp (4 Wharfc. 339), 8.
Day V. State (63 Ga. 667), 202.
Day V. State (21 Tex. App. 213), 349.
Day V. State (37 Tex. App. 143), 306.
Dayger, In re (47 Hun, 137), 369.
Dayton v. Warne (43 N. J. L. 659),
73a.
Dayton v. Wells (1 Nott & McC,
S. C, 409), 131.
Deade v. Hancock (13 Price, 236),
114.
Deady v. Harrison (1 Stark. 60), 73.
Deakers v. Temple (41 Pa. St. 334),
69.
Dean v. Aveling (1 Rob. 279), 302.
Dean v. Com. (32 Gratt., Va., 912),
57.
Dean v. Deap (1 Will., Vt., 746), 138.
Dean v. Erskine (18 N. H. 83), 230.
Dean v. Fuller (40 Pa. St. 474), 188.
Dean v. State (39 Ind. 483), 339, 334.
Dearing v. Sawtelle (4 Greenl., Me.,
191), 311.
De Arnold v. Neasmith (83 Mich.
231), 58.
Deartt v. Barley (9 N. Y. 871), 197.
Deasy v. Thurman (I Idaho, 775), 70.
Debaun, In re (4 N. Y. S. 342), 309.
De Casse Brissac v. Rathbone (6 H.
& Nor. 361), 158.
De Celis v. United States (18 Ct. CI.
117), 238.
De Cemea v. Cornell (30 N. Y. S.
895), 316.
Deck V. Johnson (1 Abb. App. Dec,
N. Y., 497), 71.
Decker, Ex parte (6 Cowen, N. Y.,
59), 128.
Dee V. Sharon Hill Acad. (2 Pa. Co.
Ct. Rep. 238), 366.
Deere v. Dagley (80 Iowa, 197; 45 N.
W. Rep. 557), 33.
Ix
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
Deery v. Cray (10 Wall., U. S., 263),
310.
De France v. Howard (4 Iowa, 534),
200.
Deig V, Morehead (110 Ind. 451 ; 11
N. E. Rep. 458), 188.
Dejarnotto v. Com. (75 Va. 857), 197.
Delacroix v. Bulky (13 Wend. 71),
314.
Delafield v. Hand (3 Johns. 310), 149.
Delafield v. Parish (35 N. Y. 9), 231.
Delamater v. Prudential L. Ins. Co.
(5 N. Y. S. 586), 307. ,
De La Motte's Case (21 How. St. Tr.
810), 133,
Delaney v. Root (99 Mass. 548), 263.
Delano v. Jacoby (31 Pao. Rep. 290 ;
96 Gal. 275), 380.
Delano v. Joysling (1 Litt., Ky,,
117), 243.
De La Riva v. Berreysea (3 Cal. 195),
79.
Delaware, etc. Co. v. Starrs (69 Pa.
St. 36), 198.
Delconiyn v. Chamberlain (48 How.
Pr., N. Y., 409), 276.
Delphi V. Lowery (74 Ind. 520), 8.
De Meli v. De Meli (120 N. Y. 492),
168, 347.
Dement, Ex parte (58 Ala. 889), 191.
Demeritt v. Meserve (39 N. H. 531),
73a.
Deming v. Merch. etc. Co. (90 Tenn.
306; 17 S. W. Rep. 89), 11.
Demonheun v. Walker (4 Baxt.,
Tenn,, 199), 139.
Den V. Johnson (18 N, J. L, 87), 166.
Den V. Longstreet (18 N. J, L. 414),
262.
Denair v, BroQklyn (5 N, Y, S, 585),
239,
Denham v. Bryant (139 Mass. 110),
24.
Denison v. Denison (35 Md. 861), 309.
Denmead v. Maack (3 MacArthur,
475), 243.
Dennie v. Williams (135 Mass. 28),
76.
Dennis v. Spencer (45 Minn. 350),
24.
Denson v. Hyde (6 Conn. 508), 143.
Dent V. Dent (3 Gill, Md., 482), 76.
Denver, etc. Co. v. Neis (56 Cal. 56)^
80.
Denver, etc. Co. v. Ryan (17 Colo,
98; 28Pac, Rep. 79), 350.
Denver & R. G, Co, v, Morrison (3
Colo. App. 194; 33 Pac. Rep.
859), 367.
Denver Tramway Co. v. Reid (Colo.,
1894, 35 Pac. Rep. 269), 193.
Depue V. Place (7 Pa. St. 438), 140.
Depue v. Sargeant (21 W. Va. 336),
208.
Deshon v. Insurance Co. (11 Met.,
Mass., 199), 309.
Des Moines Bank v. Hotel Co. (Iowa,
■ 1893, 55 N. W. Rap. 67), 376.
De Soby v. De Laister (2 Har. & J.,
Md., 19), 146.
Despatch Line v. Bellamy M. Co. (13
N. H. 305), 268.
Destrehan v. Louisiana Cypress Co.
(La., 1893, 18 S. Rep. 330), 216.
Detroit City Ry. Co. v. Mills (85
Mich. 634; 48 N, W. Rep. 1007),
346.
Detweiler v. Shultheis (132 Ind. 155),
329.
Denser v. Walkup (43 Mo. App. 625),
171.
Deutman v. Kilpatrick (46 Mo. App.
624), 206.
Devenbaugh v. Devenbaugh (5 Paige,
N. Y., 554), 203.
Devere v. State (5 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep.
509), 87.
Devereux v. McMahon (103 N. C.
284; 9S. E. Rep. 635), 131.
Devinney v. Carey (23 N. Y. State
Rep. 208), 309.
Devlin v. Boyd (69 Hun, 838), 20.
Devlin v. New York (4 Misc. Rep.
106; 28N. Y. S. 888), 199.
Devries v. Phillips (63 N. 0, 53),
854a.
TABLE OB' CASES.
Ixi
Keferenoes are to sectioijs.
Devylyn v. Killcreaae (2 McMull,
S. C, 435), 80.
Dew v. Downam (1 Green, 135), 339.
Dewey v. Dewey (35 Vt. 555), 268.
■ Dewey v. Goodenough (56 Barb. 54),
308.
Dewey v. Warriner (71 111. 198), 311.
Dewey v. Dewey (1 Met,, Mass., 349),
138.
Dewey v. St. Albans Co. (60 Vt. 1 ;
12 Atl. Rep, 224), 244.
De Witt V. Berry (134 U. S. 314), 216.
Dewitt V. Brisbane (16 N. Y. 508),
243.
Dewitt V. Yates (10 Johns. 156); 215.
De Wolf V. Strader (26 111. 235), 168.
Dexter v. Booth (3 Allen, Mass. , 559),
168.
Dexter v. Clemans (17 Pick. 175), 73.
Dexter v. Cranston (41 Mich. 448),
239.
Dexter v. Hall (15 Wall., U. S., 9),
188, 197.
Dexter v. Harrison (34 N. E. Rep.
46; 146 111. 169), 373.
Dexter v. Ivins (183 N. Y. 986), 24.
Dexter v. Ohlander ^93 Ala. 441), 205.
Diamond M. Co. v. Powers (51 Mich.
145), 140.
Dicas V. Lawson (1 Cr., M. & R. 934),
284.
Dickens v. Mahana (31 How., U. S.,
383), 235.
Dickenson v. Fitchberg (13 Gray,
546), 185.
Dickerman v. Aston (31 Mjnn. 538),
268.
Diokerson v. Mathewson (50 Fed.
Rep. 73), 371.
Dickinson v. Clark (5 W. Va. 380),
78.
Dickinson v. Colegrove (100 U. S.
580), 82.
Dickson v. Evans (6 T. R. 57), 250.
Dickson v. McGraw (151 Pa. St. 98;
34 Atl. Rep. 1048), 309.
Dickson v. Peppers (7 Ired., N. C,
439), 150a.
Dickson V. Waldron (Ind., 1893, 35
N. E. Rep. 1), 317.
Didier v. Penn. Co. (146 Pa. St. 583;
S3 Atl. Rep. 801), 11.
Diefendorf v. Diefendorf (8 N. Y. S.
617), 226.
Diel V. Railway Co. (87 Mo. App.
454), 386.
Dietrich v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co. (58
Md. 347), 73a.
Dietz V. Fourth Nat. Bank (69 Mich.
387 ; 37 N. W. Rep. 330), 140.
Diffenbach v. Vogeler (61 Md. 370),
83.
Dififenderfer v. Scott (Ind., 1893, 33
N. E. Rep. 87), 351, 353.
Digby V. People (113 111. 135), 101.
Digby V. Steel (3 Campb. 115), 88.
Dillard v. State (58 Miss. 368), 193,
342.
Dilleber v. Home L. Ins. Co. (87
N. Y. 79), 188.
Dilleber v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. (69
N. Y. 256), 178.
Dilley v. Love (61 Md. 607), 309.
Dillingham v. Flack (63 Hun, 639),
370.,
Dillon's Case (4 Dall. 116), 89.
Dills V. .State (59 Ind. 15), 191.
Dilworth v. Curts (29 N. E. Rep. 861 ;
139 111. 508), 371.
Dimiok v. Downs (82 111. 570), 849.
Dines v. People (39 III. App. 565),
244.
Dishazer v. Mariland (12 Leigh, Va.,
524), 108.
Di Sofa V. Phillips (33 Law J. Ch.,
H. L. Cas. 129), 149.
Disque v. State (49 N. J. L. 249 ; 8
Atl. Rep. 381), 346.
District v. Armes (107 U. S. 519), 8,
317.
District v. Wash. Gas Co. (30 D. C.
39), 134.
Diven v. Johnson (117 Ind, 513),
208.
Divine v. Mitchum (4 B. Mon., Ky.,
488), 368.
Ixii
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Dix V. Atkins (138 Mass. 43), 126.
Dixon V. Ely (4 Edw., N. Y., 557),
386.
Dixon V. Niccolls (39 111. 373), 237.
Dixon V. Sinclair (4 Va. 354), 153.
Dixon V. State (86 Ga. 754; 13 S. E.
Eep. 87), 347.
Dixon V. State (13 Fla. 636), 9, 53, 101,
234, 349.
Dobbin v. Bryan (5 Tex. 267), 338.
Dobson V. Cathron (34 S. C. 518), 35.
Dobson V. Kuhula (66 Hun, 637), 67,
216.
Dockterman v. Elder (37 Weekly
Law Bui. 195), 263.
Dodd V. Scott (46 N. W. Rep. 1057 ;
81 Iowa, 319), 153.
Dodge V. Freedman, etc. Co, (93 U. S.
579), 69.
Dodge V. Gallatin (130 N. Y. 117; 39
N. E. Eep. 107), 146.
Dodge V. Stanhope (55 Md. 131), 309.
Dodson V. State (86 Ala. 60; 5 S.
Rep. 485), 93.
Doe V. Barnes (1 M. & R. 386, 389),
144.
Doe V. Campbell (10 Johns., N. Y.,
475), 107.
Doe V. Davies (10 Q. B. 314), 13,
113,
Doe V. Davis (11 Jur. 607), 53,
Doe V. Deakin (3 Carr. & P. 403),
105,
Doe V. Griffin (15 East, 393), 333.
Doe V. Hilder (3 B, & Aid. 793), 343.
Doe V, Keeling (11 Q, B. 884; 36
Leg. Obs. 313), 106.
Doe V. Lindsey (24 Ga, 235), 232.
Dos V. Miles (1 Stark. 181), 38.
Doe V. Ries (7 Bing, 724), 136.
Doe V. Riley (38 Ala, 164), 240.
Doe v. Roe (31 Ga. 593), 106.
Doe V, Sisson (13 East, 63), 116.
Doe V. State (40 Ark. 454), 120.
Doe V. Tarver (Ry. & M. 141, 142),
114.
Doe V. Thomas (14 East, 333), 115.
Dogge V. State (37 Neb. 373), 807.
Dolan V. Armstrong (35 Neb. 839;
53N.W. Rep. 133), 249.
Dole V. Johnson (50 N. H, 454), 185,
188.
Dole V. Wilson (16 Minn. 473), 343.
Dolev. Wooldridge (143 Mass. 184;
7 N. E. Rep. 83"^ 340.
Doll V, Mundine (84 Tex. 315), 283,
Doll V. People (111., 1893, 34 N. E.
Rep, 413), 373.
Donaldson v. Everhart (50 Kan. 718 ;
33 Pac. Rep. 405), 71.
Donaldson v. Jude (3 Bibb, 60), 146.
Donell V. Jones (13 Ala. 490), 334.
Donelly v. Smith (7 R. L 13), 166,
Donkt V. Thelluson (8 C. B, 813),
143.
Donlin v. Daeglin (80 111. 608), 309.
Donnell v. Clark (13 Kan. 154), 73o,
Donnell v. James (18 Ala. 490), 833.
Donahue v. Mills (41 Ark. 431), 316.
Donohue v. Brannuui (1 Overton,
338), 148.
Donohue v. People (6 Park. C. C„
N. Y., 130), 139. •
Donohue v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co. (91
Mo. 360), 370,
Donohue V. Whitney (61 Hun, 630;
15 N, Y. S, 633), 113, 115, 116.
Doolittle V, State (93 Ind. 373), 193.
Dooly Block v. S. L. Rap. T. Co.
(Utah, 1893, 33 Pac, Rep. 229),
380,
Doon V. Donaher (113 Mass. 151), 126.
Dorau v. Mullen (78 111. 342), 334.
Dorev. Thornburgh (90 Cal. 64; 27
Pac. Rep, 30), 149.
Doren v. Jeliflfe (20 N. Y. S. 686), 367.
Dorlarque v. Cress (71 111. 880-383),
84.
Dorman v. State (56 Ind, 454), 344.
Dome V. Southwork Manuf'g Co, (11
Cush., Mass,, 305), 73a.
Dorr V. Fenno <13 Pick. 531), 28.
Dorsey v. Hagard (5 Mo. 420), 308.
Doster v. Brown (35 Ga. 24), 199.
Doty V. Smith (68 Huu, 199; 33 N.
Y. S. 840), 60.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixiii
Beferenoes are to sections.
Doud V. Guthrie (13 Brad w., 111., 653),
344.
Douglas V. Carmeaii (49 Kan. 674 ; 31
Pac. Rep. 371), 135.
Bouglas V. Saunderson (3 Dall. 116),
53.
Douglass V. Anthony (45 Kan. 439 ;
35 Pac. Rep. 853), 377.
Douglass V. FuUerton (7 111. App.
102), 307.
Douglass V. Mitchell (35 Pa. St. 440), 5.
Dove V. Royal Ins. Co. (Mich., 1894,
57 N. W. Rep. 30), 188.
Dow V. Jewell (18 N. H. 380), 139,
363.
Dow V. Smith (7 Vt. 465), 386.
Dow V. State (31 Tex. Cr. Rep. 378),
383.
Dowd V. Watson (105 N. C. 476), 333.
Dowdell V. State (58 Ind. 333), 340.
Dowden v.' Junker (48 N. J. Eq. 584),
384.
Dowdy V. Georgia R. R. Co. (88 Ga.
736), 188.
Dowell V. Guthrie (99 Mo. 653), 8,
350.
Dower v. Church (31 W. Va. 57), 343,
376.
Dowling V. Hennings (30 Md. 186),
339.
Downer v. Rowell (34 Vt. 343), 337.
Downey v. Hendrie (46 Mich. 498),
337.
Downie, In re (43 Wis. 66), 336.
Downing v. Diaz (80 Tex. 436 ; 16 S.
W. Rep. 49), 143.
Do'wning v. Iron Co. (93 Ala, — ),
363.
Downs V. Beldon (46 Vt. 674), 69, 71.
Dows V. McMichael (1 Paige, 139),
160.
Dow's Ex'rs V. Spinney's Ex'rs (39
Mo. 386), 133.
Doyle V. Beaupre (63 Hun, 634), 341.
Doyle V. Church (118 N; Y. 678; 33
N. E. Rep. 938), 50.
Doyle V. Eye & Ear Infirmary (80 N.
y. 601), 193.
Doyle V. Kansas City Ry. Co. (113
Mo. 380; 30 S. W. Rep. 970), 367.
Doyle V. Manhattan Ry. Co. (59
Hun, 635), 194.
Drake v. Seaman (97 N. Y. 330), 368.
Drake v. State (33 Tex. 393), 103.
Drake v. State (75 Ga. 413), 10. 39,
Draper v. Hatfield (134 Mass. 53), 76.
Dravo v. Fable (133 U. S. 487; 10 S.
Ct. Rep. 170), 347.
Drennon v. Smith (3 Head, Tenn.,
389), 70.
Drew V. Drum (44 Mo. App. 35),
366.
Drew V. Prior (5 M. & G. 364), 139.
Drew V. Simmons (58 Ala. 463), 309.
Drew V. Swift (46 N. Y. 309), 330.
Drexel v. Berney (133 U. S. 353), 83.
Drinkhouse, In re (34 Atl. Rep. 1083;
151 Pa. St. 394), 35.
Drown v. Forrest (63 Vt. 557), 30.
Drummond v. Magruder (9 Cranch,
133), 148.
Drumright v. State (39 Ga. 430), 84.
Drury v. Midland R. R. Co. (137
Mass, 571), 115.
Dryden v. Stephens (19 Mass. 1), ■
338.
Dryer v. Brown (53 Hun, 391), 141.
Dublin V. Chadbourne(16 Mass. 433),
150.
Dubois V. Baker (30 N. Y. 355), 140,
141.
Dubois V, Mason (137 Mass, 37), 331.
Dubois V, Perkins (31 Dreg. 189 ; 37
Pac. Rep. 1044), 50,
Ducan v. Beard (3 N. & McC, S. C,
400), 137.
Duchess of Kingston's Case (11 Harg.
St. Tr. 343), 178.
Ducker v. Whitson (113 N. C. 44; 16
S. E. Rep. 854), 309, 333.
Dudley v. McCluer (65 Mo. 241), 10.
Dudley v. McCord (65 Iowa, 671 ; 33
N. W. Rep. 930), 353, 355.
Dudley v. Maley (43 Fed. Rep. 407),
153.
Dudley v. Vose (114 Mass. 34), 317.
Ixiv
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferences are to sections.
Dufle V. Duff (71 Cal. 513; 12 Pac.
Rep. 570), 75.
Duffield V. Hue (139 Pa. St. 94), 206.
Dugan V. Mahoney (11 Allen, Mass.,
572), 337.
Bugger V. McKesson (100 N. C. 1 ; 6
S. E. Rep. 746), 115.
Dagger v. Taylor (46 Ala, 320), 205.
Duke of Buooleugh v. Board (L. R.
5 H. L. Cas. 418; 3 Moak's Eng.
448), 814.
Duke of New Castle v. Braxtowe (4
B. & Ad. 273), 116.
Dulaney v. St. Louis S. R. Co. (43
Mo. App. 65), 9, 11.
Dulaney v. Walshe (3 Tex. Civ. App.
174; 32 S. W. Rep. 181), 37.
Duliu V. Prince (39 111. App. 209),
154.
Dumas v. State (62 Ga. 58), 101.
Dunagan v. Dunagan (38 Ga. 554),
211.
Dunbar v. Marden (13 N. H. 811),
138.
Dunbar v. McGill (69 Mich. 397; 37
N. W. Rep. 285), 354.
Duncan v. Beard (2 Nott & McCord,
8. C, 400), 106.
Duncan v, Duncan (2 Yeates, Pa.,
302), 221.
Duncan v. Hughes (1 McCord, 339,
240), 138.
Duncan v. State (88 Ala. 31), 282.
Duncan v. State (10 S. Rep. 815 ; 29
Fla. 489), 370.
Dundas v. Hitchcock (13 How. , U. S. ,
356), 136.
Dunham v. Carson (87 S. C. 369 ; 15
S. E. Rep. 960), 153.
Dunham v. Gannett (124 Mass. 151),
220.
Dunklee v. Goodenough (65 Vt. 257),
60.
Dunlap V. Hearn (87 Miss. 471, 474),
166.
Dunlap V. Walls (6 N. H. 450), 148.
Dunlop V. Dunlop (94 Mich. 11), 808,
Dunn V. Amos (14 Wis. 106), 208.
Dunn V. Lewis (65 Hun, 630), 282.
Dunn V. Packwood(ll Jur. 242), 312.
Dunn V. People (109 111. 635), 330.
Dunn V. People (29 N. Y. 539), 350,
375.
Dunn V. Pipes (30 La. Ann. 276),
211.
Dunn V. Whitney (10 Me. 9), 60.
Dunnenbaum v. Schram (59 Tex.
281), 358,
Dunns v. Rogers (43 111. 260), 150a.
Dunraven v. Llewellyn (15 Q. B. 791 ;
15 Ad. &E1. 791), 115.
Dunston v. Higgins (63 Hun, 631),
158.
Dunton v. Keel (Ala., 1893, 10 S.
Rep. 383), 334.
Duntzy v. Van Buren (5 Hun, 648),
194.
Dupeyster v. Gagoni (84 Ky. 403 ; 1
S. W. Rep, 653), 150.
Dupree v. Dupree (45 Ga. 415-443),
138.
Dupree v. State (33 Ala. 380), 10,
123.
Dupree v. Woodruff (Tex., 1892, 19
S. W. Rep. 469), 83.
Durch V. Chippewa (60 Wis. 237),
343.
Dure V. Eady (6 Dowl. P. Cas. 615),
358.
Durfee v. Abbott (61 Mich. 471), 144.
Durfee v. Knowles (50 Hun, 601 ; 3
N. Y. S. 466), 353.
Durham v. Shannon (116 Ind. 403;
19 N. E. Rep. 190), 57.
Durkee v. Cent. P. Ry. Co. (69 Cal.
533), 57.
Durkee v. Leland (4 Vt. 613), 174.
Durkee v. Railroad Co. (39 Vt. 137),
33.
Durkin v. Cobleigh (156 Mass. 108;
30 N, E. Rep, 474), 313.
Darnell V. Sowden (5 Utah Rep. 516;
14 Pao. Rep. 335), 140.
Durrett v. State (63 Ala. 434), 334.
Dursly v. Fitzharding (6 Ver. 357),
363.
TABLE OF OASES.
Ixv
Beferences are to sections.
Durst V. Masters (L. R, 10 Prob. Biv.
373-378), 38a.
Dury V. Hervey (126 Mass. 517), 79.
Duryea v. Granger (66 Mich. 593 ; 33
N. W. Rep. 730) 309.
Duryea v. Vosburgh (121 N. T. 57 ;
24 N. E. Rep. 308), 73a.
Dusenbury v. Hoadly (63 Hun, 629 ;
20 N. Y. S. 911), 60.
Dutch, etc. Co. v. Mooney 12 Cal.
585), 242.
Duttenhofer v. State (34 Ohio St. 91),
174.
Button V. Wordraan (9 Gush. 225),
153.
Duval V. Govenhoven (4 Wend.,
N. Y., 561), 77.
Bwelly, In re (46 Me. 477, 480), 166.
Dwiggins v. Gook (71 Ind. 579), 150a.
Bwinell v. Pottle (3 Me. 167), 60.
Bwinelle v, Rowland (1 Abb. Pr.,
N. Y., 87), 359,.
Dwinnell v. Larrabee (38 Me. 464),
126.
Bworak v. More (41 N. W. Rep. 777 ;
25 Neb. 735, 741), 148.
Bwyer v. Bassett (1 Tex. Giv. App.
"513), 9, 57, 120.
Bwyer v. Brenham(65 Tex. 526), 242.
Bwyer v. Bunbar (5 Wall., U. S.,
318), 32.
Bwyer v. Rippetoe (72 Tex. 520), 124,
366.
Dye V. Young (55 Iowa, 433), 67.
Dyer v. Dyer (87 Ind. 13), 222.
Byer v. Fredericks (63 Me. 173), 30.
Byer v. Irving (2 Bern. 160), 129.
Byer v. Last (51 111. 179), 244.
Byer v. Smith (12 Gonn. 884), 143.
Byson v. Wood (3 B. & C. 449, 451),
147.
E.
Eager v. Grawford (76 N. Y. 97), 210.
Eagle V. Emmett (4 Bradf., N. Y.,
117), 233.
Eakins v. Bakins (Ky., 1893, 20 S.
W. Rep. 285), 231.
Eakle v. Clark (30 Md. 332), 67.
Eames v. Eames (41 N. H. 176), 231.
Earl v. Gamp (16 Wend., N. Y., 562),
150a.
Earl v. People (73 111. 329)),' 324.
Earl V. Tupper (45 Yt. 375), 52.
Earl Spencer v. Peek (L. R. 8 Eq.
415), 363.
Earl of Suffolk v. Green (1 Atk. 450),
363.
Early v. Com. (86 Va. 921 ; 11 S. B.
Rep. 795), 95,
Early v. Lake Shore, etc. Go. (30
Am. & Bng. R. Gas, 163), 8.
Early v. State (9 Tex. App. 476), 141.
Easley v. Missouri Pac, Ry, Co. (113
Mo. 236; 20 S. W. Rep. 107), 375.
Eason v. Chapman (21 111. 35), 349,
350.
Eastern Lum. Go. v. Gill (9 Pa. Co.
Gt. R. 630), 347.
Eastern Trans. Co. v. Hope (95 17. S.
297), 198.
Eastman v. Crosby (90 Mass. 206),
242.
Eastman v. Martin (19 N. H. 153),
53.
Bast Tenn. etc. Co. v. Bavis (8 S.
Rep. 349; 91 Ala. 615), 36,
East Tenn. etc. Go. v, Fleetwood
(Ga,, 1893, 15 S. E. Rep. 778),
253.
East Tenn, etc. Go. v, Hesters (90
Ga, 11; 15 S. E, Rep. 828), 374.
East Tenn. etc, Co. v, Markins (13
S. E. Rep, 855; 88 Ga, 60), 11.
East Tenn. etc. Go, v, Turvaville
(Ala,, 1893, 13 S, Rep. 63), 369,
370.
East Tenn. etc. Go. v. Watson (90
Ala. 41; 7 S. Rep. 813), 188.
East -Tenn. etc. Co. v. Wright (76
Ga. 532), 198.
East Tenn. Iron Co. v. Gaskell (2
Lea, 742), 238.
East Tenn., V. & G. R. Go. v. Arnold
(89 Tenn. 107; 14 S. W. Rep.
439), 362.
Ixvi
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
East Tenn., V. & G. R. Co. v. Maloy
(77 Ga. 237), 50, 73a.
Eaton V. Alger (47 N. Y. 451), 247.
Eaton V. Avery (83 N. Y. 31), 243.
Eaton V. Badger (33 N. H. 238), 232.
Eaton V. Cook (35 N. J. Eq. 55), 265.
Eaton v. Tallmadge (24 Wis. 217),
53.
Eaton V. Telegraph Co. (68 Me. 63),
76, 83, 83.
Ebersole v. Eanbin (102 Mo. 488; 15
S. W. Rep. 432), 130.
Ebert v. Ebert (5 Md. 353), 234.
Eborn v. Zlmpleman (47 Tex. 519),
38a.
Ecker v. Bank (64 Md. 292; 1 Atl.
Rep. 849), 237.
Eckert v. Rule (51 Kan. 703 ; 32 Pac.
Rep. 657), 380.
Eckert v. Trlplett (48 Ind. 174), 66.
Eokford v. Eckford (Iowa, 1893, 53
N. W. Rep. 345), 232.
Eckles V. Bates (26 Ala. 655), 192.
Eckstein, In re (24 Atl. Rep. 63; 3
W. N. C. 59; 10 Pa. Co. Ct. R.
41), 354a.-
Eddy V. Lowry (Tex., 1894, 24 S. W.
Rep. 1076), 336.
Eddy V. McCall (71 Mich. 497; 39 N.
W. Rep. 734), 50.
Eddy V. Newton (Tex., 1893, 22 S.
W. Rep. 533), 376.
Ede V. Johnson (15 Cal. 53), 240.
Edelin v. Sanders (8 Md. 118), 141.
Edgar v. Richardson (33 Ohio St.
581), 38.
Edgerly v. Emerson (33 N. H. 555),
311.
Edie V. E. I. Co. (3 Burr. 1226), 243.
Edington v. Mut. L. Ins. Co. (67
N. Y. 186), 178.
Edison Elec. Co, v. United States
Elec. Co. (44 Fed. Rep. 294), 173.
Edmansen v. Andrews (35 111. App.
223), 8.
Edmonston v. Henry (45 Mo. App.
346), 140.
Edso V. Munsell (10 Allen, 557), 229.
Edwards v. Crenshaw (30 Mo. App..
510), 347.
Edwards v. Ford (3 Bailey, S. C.,.
461), 80.
Edwards v. Osmond (84 Tex. 656;
19 S. W. Rep. 868), 31.
Edwards v. State (21 Ark. 512), 234.
Edwards v. Sullivan (8 Ired., N. C,
302), 3546.
Edwards v. Tracy (63 Pa. St. 374),
38, 69.
Edwards v. Tyler (141 111. 454; 31 N.
E. Rep. 312), 71.
Edwards v. Wall (79 Va. 321), 333.
Edwards v. Watertown (59 Hun,
620; 13 N. Y. S. 309), 56.
Egan V. Murray (80 Iowa, 180; 45-
N. W. Rep. 563), 139.
Egery v. Buchanan (5 Cal. 56), 150a.
Eggers V. Eggers (57 Ind. 461), 190.
Egler V. People (56 N. Y. 642), 193.
Egleton V. Gutteridge (11 M. & W.
468). 138.
Egleton V. Knickerbocker (6 Barb.,
N.Y., 458), 311.
Ehle's Will, In re (41 N. W. Rep. 637 ;
73 Wis. 445), 233.
Ehrisman v. Scott (5 Ind. App. 596;,
33 N. E. Rep. 867), 339. .'
Eichelberger v. Sifford (37 Md. 320),
131, 134.
Eichenlaub v. St. Joseph (21 S. W.
Rep. 8; 113 Mo. 395), 143.
Eidam v. Finnegan (48 Minn. 53 ; 50
N. W. Rep. 933), 371.
Eidt V. Cutter (127 Mass. 523), 201.
Eiland v. State (58 Ala. 333), 93, 103.
Eisenlord v. Clum (67 Hun, 518; 22
N. Y. S. 574), 11.
Eisenlord v. Clum (126 N. Y. 553; 27
N. E. Rep. 1024), 53.
Eisenlord v. Eisenlord (3 N. Y. S.
133),' 309.
Eisfield V. Dill (71 Iowa, 443), 141.
Ekinton v. Brick (44 N. J. Eq. 154),
197.
Elberfeldt v. Waite (79 Wis. 384),.
124.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixvii
Beferences are to sections.
Elberson v. Eichards (42 N. J. L. 30),
23.
Eld V. Gorham (20 Conn. 8), 141.
Elder v. Oliver (30 Mo. App. 575),
254.
Eldon V. Burlingame (62 Iowa, 32),
143a.
Elgin V. Hall (83 Va. 680), 129.
Elgin V. Welch (33 111. App. 185),
124.
Eliot V. Eliot (10 Allen, 357), 138.
Elizabethtown v. Lefler (33 111. 90),
143a.
Elizando v. State (31 Tex. Orim. Eep.
237), 323.
Elkhart v. Whitman (133 Ind. 538),
341.
Ellen V. Lewison (88 Cal. 353; 36
Pao. Rep. 109), 7.
EUermau v. Stockyards (49 N. J. Eq.
217;28 Atl. Eep, 257), 250.
EUice V. Eoupell (33 Beav. 299), 363.
EUingv. Thextcn (7 Mont. 330; 16
Pac. Eep. 931), 239.
EUingwood v. Bragg (53 N. H. 488),
141.
Elliot V. McClelland (71 Ala. 206),
148.
Elliott V. Pearl (10 Pet. 412), 114.
Elliott V. PearsoU (1 Pet. 338), 53,
136.
Elliott V. State (34 Neb. 48; 51 N. W.
Eep. 315), 346.
Elliott V. Van Buren (33 Mich. 49),
188, 194.
Elliott V. Wanamaker (155 Pa. St.
67; 25 Atl. Eep 836), 11.
Ellis V. Bank (7 How. U. S., 394),
214.
Ellis V. Bristol (1 Gray. Mass., 370),
140.
Ellis V. Burrel (60 Me. 209), 6.
Ellis V. Dempsey (4 W. Va. 136), 69.
Ellis V. Eastman (32 Cal. 447), 343.
Ellis V. Ellis (33 Mass. 469), 223.
Ellis V. Houston (L. E. 10 Ch. "Div.
336), 332.
Ellis V. Park (8 Tex. 305), 233, 339.
Ellis V. Eeddin (12 Kan. 306), 240.
Ellis V. Eompell (33 Beav. 399), 363.
Ellis V. State (65 Miss. 44), 89.
Ellis V. State (35 Fla. 702; 6 S. Eep.
768), 337.
Ellis V. State (Tex., 1893, 24 S. W.
Eep. 894), 114, 197.
Ellis V. Stewart (Tex., 1894, 24 S. W.
Eep. 585), 308.
Ellis V. Ward (137 111. 509), 380.
Ellison V. Wilson (36 Vt. 67), 134.
Ellmaker v. EUmaker (4 Watts, Pa.,
89, 221.
Ellsworth V. Insurance Co. (105
N. Y. 634), 30.
Ellsworth V. Nelson (81 Iowa, 57),
339.
Elmborg v. St. Paul C. E. Co. (51
Minn. 70; 52 N. W. Eep. 639),
378.
Elmendorf v. Taylor (10 Wheat.
152), 342.
Elmer v. Marsh (3 Ind. App. 558),
366.
Elmer v. Mut. Ben. L. Ass'n (19 N.
Y. S. 389), 250.
Elmore v. State (Ala., 1893; 13 S.
Eep. 427), 80.
Elrod V. Alexander (4 Heisk. 342),
237.
Elsas V. Second Av. E. E. Co. (9 N.
Y. S. 210; 56 Hun, 161), 192.
Elting V. Dayton (63 Hun, 629; 17
N. Y. S. 849), 18.
Elting V. Scott (3 Johns., N. Y., 157),
176.
EltinK V. United States (27 Ct. CI.
158), 288.
Elwood V. Deifendorf (5 Barb. 498),
67, 76.
Ely ton L. Co. v. McElrath (53 Fed.
Eep. 763), 231.
Emeric v, Alvaredo (64 Cal. 529), 234.
Emanual v. Gates (53 Fed. Eep. 772),
142.
Emerson v. Fisk (6 Greenl. 300), 136.
Emerson v. Lowell G. L. Co. (6
Allen, 148), 208.
fxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Emerson v. Mills (83 Tex. 385), 226.
Emery v. Bos. Marine Ins. Co. (138
Mass. 398), 216.
Emery v. Fowler (39 M-e. 326), 124,
151.
Emley v. Drum (36 Pa. St. 123), 150a.
Emmons v. Oldham (12 Tex. 18), 218.
Empire Manuf. Co. v. Stuart (46
Mich. 482), 139, 139a.
( Empire Pass. Ey. Co., Appeal of (19
Atl. Rep. 639; 36 W. N. C. 26),
140.
Enders v, McDonald (5 Ind. App.
297; 31 N. E. Rep. 1056), 383.
Engle V. Smith (83 Mich. 1 ; 46 N. W.
Rep. 21), 8.
Engles V. Bruington (4 Yeates, Pa.,
345), 131.
English V. Sprague (33 Me. 440), 147.
Engraving Co. v. Hoke (30 Fed. Rep.
444), 241.
Ennis v. Smith (14 How., U. S., 400),
143, 343.
Ennor v. Hodson (28 111. App. 445),
139.
Ennor v. Thompson (46 111. 215), 136.
Enos V. Garrett (3 Pa. Dis. Co. R. 86),
333.
Enos V. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins.
Co. (S. D., 1894, 57 N. W. Rep.
919), 193, 199, 336.
Ensign v. McKinney (30 Hun, N. Y.,
249), 108.
Eppert V. Hall (138 Ind. 417; 31
N. E. Rep. 74), 350.
Epping V. Mockler (55 Ga. 376), 205.
Epps V. State (102 Ind. 539), 188, 190.
' Epps V. State (19 Ga. 102), 343.
Equator M. & S. Co. v. Gunella (18
Colo. 543 ; 33 Pao. Rep. 013), 200,
209.
Equitable M. Co. v. Kempner (84
Tex. 102), 136.
Equitable Mut. Life Aco. Ass'n v.
MoCluskey (1 Colo. App. 473 , 29
Pao. Rep. 383), 52.
Ericksen v. Schuster (44 Minn. 441),
30.
Erickson v. Brant (Minn., 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 62), 208.
Erickson v. Draskowski (94 Mich.
551), 199.
Erie & Pac. Des. v. Stanley (133 111.
158; 14 N. E. Rep. 213), 144.
Ervin v. Bevil (80 Tex. 383), 362.
Ervin v. Ervin (18 Civ. Pro. Rep. 11),
309.
Erwin v. English (61 Conn. 502; 28
Atl. Rep. 753), 58.
Eskridge v. Railroad Co. (89 Ky. 367 ;
12 S. W. Rep. 580), 18S.
Eskridge v. State (35 Ala. 80). 91.
Espey v. Comer (76 Ala. 501), 69.
Estes v. Fry (94 Mo. 266), 314.
Estill V. Taul (2 Yerger, 467, 470),
153.
Bstman v. St. Anthony, etc. Co. (43
Minn. 60; 44 N. W. Rep. 883),
317.
Ethredge v. Hobbs (77 Ga. 351), 330.
Etowah G. M. Co. v. Exter (Ga.,
1893, 16 S. E. Rep. 991), 377.
Euless V. McAdams (108 N. C. 507),
233.
Eureka Ins. Co. v. Robinson (56 Pa.
St. 256), 50.
Eureka Vinegar Co. v. Gazette (35
Fed. Rep. 570), 237, 244.
Evans v. Eaton (7 Wheat. 356), 803.,
Evans v. Evans (155 Pa. St. 573 ; 26
Atl. Rep. 755), 71.
Evans v. Getting (6 C. & P. 586), 145.
Evans v. Grissom (40 N. J. L. 549),
333.
Evans v. Hettich (7 Wheat. 458), 303,
317.
Evans v. Montgomery (Mich., 1893,
55 N. W. Rep. 362), 79.
Evans v. Phelps (13 Mich. 37), 194.
Evans v. Railroad Co. (5 Phila. Rep.
512), 242.
Evans v. Rees (13 Ad. & El. 55),
280.
Evans v. Roberts (5 B. & C. 836), 262.
Evans v. State (Ark., 1893, 22 S. W.
Rep. 1026), 57, 101,
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixix
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Evanston v. Gunn (99 U. S. 660),
144.
Evansville, etc. Co. v. Fettig (130
Ind. 61), 188.
Evansville, etc. Co. v. Maddox (Ind.,
1893, 34 N. E. Rep. 511), 233.
Evansville, etc. Co. v. Weikle (Ind.,
1893, 83 N. E. Rep. 639), 380.
Evarts v. United States M. Aoo. Ins.
Co. (61 Hun, 624), 24.
Everett v. Lowdham (5 C. & P. 91),
330.
Everett v. State (63 Ga. 65), 53.
Everett v. State (18 Tex. App. 683 ;
18 S. W. Rop. 674), 174.
Everett v. Tidball (34 Neb. 803), 361.
Eversole v. Rankin (103 Mo. 488), 31.
Everson v. Mayhew (85 Cal. 1 ; 21
Pao. Rep. 431), 31.
Ewing V. Bailey (36 111. App. 191),
316.
Ewing V. Gay (12 Ind. 64), 70.
Ewing V. Smith (133 Ind. 205), 208.
Ewing V. State (16 S. W. Rep. 873),
58.
Ewing V. Wilson (133 Ind. 228 ; 31
N. E. Rep. 64), 133.
Express Co. v. Aldine Press (136 Pa.
St. 347), 139.
Eysamen, In re (113 N. Y. 63), 309,
367.
Eyster v. Hathaway (50 111. 533), 137.
P.
Fabyan v. Russell (38 N. H. 84), 344.
Fain v. Cornett (35 Ga. 186), 374.
Fairbanks v. Erwin (15 Colo. 366),
247.
Fairbury v. Rodgers (98 111. 554), 198.
Falk V. Gast Lith. Co. (54 Fed. Rep.
890), 63.
Fairchild v. Bascomb (85 Vt. , 308,
415), 188, 197.
Fairchild v. Dennison (4 Watts, 278),
60.
Fairfax F. M. Co. v. Chambers (Md.,
1893, 33 Atl. Rep. 1034), 19.
Fairly v. Fairly (38 Miss. 280), 105.
Faivre v. Daley (93 Cal. 663), 8.
Fall V. Glover '(34 Neb. 533; 53 N. W.
Rep. 168), 308.
Fall V. Roper (3 Head, Tenn., 385),
136.
Fallin v. State (83 Ala. 5), 350.
Falls Land Co. v. Chisolm (71 Tex.
533; 9S. W. Rep. 479), 141.
Fallman v. B. & O. R. Co. (45 Fed.
Rep. 156), 150a.
Falvey v. Richmond (87 Ga. 99), 343.
Falvey v. Jackson (132 Ind. 176), 368.
Fant v. Sprig (50 Md. 551), 207.
'Farkas v. State (60 Miss. 847), 133.
Farley v. Deslonde (69 Tex. 458), 317.
Farmer v. Grove (24 Cal. 169), 333.
Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co.
(40 Minn. 152), 311.
Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hair
(87 Pa. St. 124), 834.
Farncomb v. Stern (18 Colo. 379 ; 83
Pac. Rep. 613), 13.
Farnswith v. Brigg (6 N. H. 561),
150.
Farrar v. Bolles (55 Tex. 193), 344.
Farrar v. Farrar (4 N. H. 191), 365.
Farrar v. Stackpole (6 Greenl. 154),
316.
Farrell v. Bean (10 Md. 217), 308.
Farrell v. Ladwell (31 Wis.' 183), 166.
Farrell v. Weitz (Mass., 1894, 35 N.
E. Rep. 783), 79.
Farrington V. Hayes (65 Vt. 153; 25
Atl. Rep. 1091), 58.
Farris v. Com. (Ky., 1890, 1 S. W.
Rep. 729), 331.
Fathere v. Lawrence (38 Miss, 622),
138.
Faulkner v. Faulkner (84 Ga. 73),
190.
Faulkner v. Territory (N. M., 1893,
30 Pac. Rep. 96), 6, 38, 349.
Faulkner v. Williman (Ky., 1891, 16
S. W. Rep. 353), 332.
Faw V. Meals (65 Ga. 711), 73a.
Fawcett V. Linthecum (7 Ohio.Cir.
Ct. Rep. 141), 280.
Ixx
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Faxon v. Folvey (110 Mass. 392),
246.
Faxon v. Hollis (13 Mass. 427), 60.
Fay V. Harlan (128 Mass. 244), 52.
Fay V. Swan (44 Mich. 544), 193.
Fearn v. West Jersey Ferry (143 Pa.
St. 122), 363.
Feather v. Reading (155 Pa. St. 187),
341.
Fechheimerv. Trounstine (18 Colo.
386), 208.
Fee V. Taylor (83 Ky. 264), 9, 140.
Feeley v. Stelnmetz (22 Pa. St. 437),
355.
Feeney v. L. I. R. R. Co. (116 N. Y.
S80), 178.
Felder v. State (5 S. W. Rep. 145; 23
Tex. App. 477), 80, 102.
Fell V. Young (63 111. 106), 107.
Fellows V. l^lenasha (11 Wis. 558),
242.
Fellows V. Smith (130 Mass. 78), 66,
115.
Fellows V. Williamson (1 M. & M.
306), 56, 69.
Felsenthal v. State (30 Tex. App.
675), 10.
Felter v. Mulliner (2 Johns. 181),
146.
Felts y. Clapper (69 Hun, 373), 249.
Fenlon v. Dempsey (.50 Hun, 131 ; 21
Abb. N. C. 291), 231, 288, 332.
Fenner v. London & S. E. Ry. Co.
(L. R. 7 Q. B. 767), 168.
Fennimore v. Childs (1 Halst., N. J.,
386), 79.
Fenton v. Miller (94 Mich. 204), 134.
Fenton v. State (100 Ind. 90), 241.
Fen wick v. Bell (1 C. & K. 312),
198,
Fenwick v. Ratcliffe (6 T. B. Mon.,
Ky., 154), 208.
Ferbrach v. Martin (Idaho, 1893, 32
Pac. Rep. 252), 51.
Ferdinand v. State (39 Ala. 706),
238.
Ferguson v. Harwood (7 Cranoh,
408), 18, 148.
Ferguson v. Hubbell (97 N. Y. 507),
199.
Ferguson v. McBean (91 Cal, 63),
174.
Ferguson v. Wright (N. C, 1894, 18
S. E. Rep. 691), 114.
Ferrari v. Murray (152 Mass. 496), 7.
Ferrers v. Shirley (Fitzgibbon, 19.5),
139.
Ferris v. Hard (135 N. Y. 354), 76,
208.
Ferry v. Sampson (112 N. Y. 415),
232.
Fesenmyer v. Adcock (16 M. & W.
449), 218.
Fesler v. Simpson (58 Ind. 83), 210.
Fetrill v. Fetrill (5 Jones' Eq. 61),
208.
Fiedler v. Stone (6 Cush., Mass.,
340), 21.
Field V. Com. (Va., 1893, 16 S. E.
- Rep. 835), 376.
Field V. Holland (6 Cranoh, 8), 76.
Field V. Munson (47 N. Y. 221), 371.
Field V. United States (9 Pet., TJ. S.,
183), 150a.
Fields V. State (32 N. E. Rep. 780),
10.
Fife V. Com. (29 Pa. St. 429), 3, 89.
Fifield V. Richardson (34 Vt. 410),
57.
File V. Springel (132 Ind. 312), 33.
Filer v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co. (49 N. Y.
42), 193.
Filer, etc. Co. v. Johnson (63 Wis.,
118), 358.
Filley v. Angell (102 Mass, 167), 50.
Finch V. Galligher (25 Abb. ,N. C.
404), 285.
Finch V. Gridley's Ex'rs (25 Wend.,
N. Y.,469), 139.
Finelite v. Finelite (68 Hun, 82),
376.
Fink V. Hey (42 Mo. App. 295), 308.
Finley v. Bogan (20 La. Ann. 448),
207.
Finley v. St, Louis Ref. Co. (99 Mo.
559), 10.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxi
Beferenoes are to sections.
Finn v. Frink (84 Me. 261), 51.
Finn's Case (5 Rand., Va., 701), 121.
Finnegan v. Dugan (14 Alien, 197),
845.
Finnegan v. Fall River Gas Works
(Mass., 1893, 34 N. E. Rep. 523),
193.
Finney v. Callendei- (8 Minn. 41), 145.
Finney v. State (15 S. W. Rep. 175;
29 Tex. App. 184), 23.
Fire Ass'n v. Fleming (78 Ga. 733;
3 S. E. Rep. 420), 157.
Fire Ass'n v. Wickham (141 U. S.
564), 209.
First Church v. Holyoke M. Ins. Co.
(33 N. E. Rep. 572; 158 Mass.
475), 310.
First Nat. Bank v. Burkhardt (100
U. S. 692), 316.
First Nat. Bank v. Carson (60 Mich.
82), 128.
First Nat. Bank v. Clark (134 N. Y.
868), 374.
First Nat. Bank v. Cornell (41 Ohio
St. 401), 310.
First Nat. Bank v. Cunningham (48
Fed. Rep. 515), 159.
First Nat. Bank v. Doty (12 Pa. Co.
Ct. R. 287), 285.
.First Nat. Bank v. Forest (44 Fed.
Rep. 346), 363.
.First Nat. Banli v. Lowrey (Neb.,
1893, 54 N. W. Rep. 568), 247.
First Nat. Bank v. McConnell (17 N.
Y. S. 422), 241.
First Nat. Bank v. North (S. D., 51
N. W. Rep. 96), 363.
First Nat. Bank v. William Ruehl
Co. (33 111. App. 131), 378.
Fischer v. Insurance Co. (35 Fed.
Rep. 544), 333.
Fischer v. King (58 Pa. St. 3), 138.
Fish V. Farwell (33 111. App. 343),
276.
Fisher v. Fisher (131 Ind. 462), 124.
Fisher v. Fisher (129 N. Y. 654), 178.
Fisher v. Porch (10 N. J. Eq. 2-13),
304.
Fisher v. Railroad Co. (33 Greg. 533),
186.
Fisher v. State (30 Tex. App. 503),
249.
Fisher v. Tucker (1 McCord, 175), 69.
Fisher's Appeal (132 Pa. St. 488),
223.
Fist V. Fist (3 Colo. App. 273; 32Pac.
Rep. 719), 878.
Fitch V. Bogue (19 Conn. 385), 130.
Fitch V. Kennard (19 N. Y. S. 468),
350.
Fitch V. Pinckard (5 111. 78), 143a.
Fite V. Black (Ga., 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 349), 76.
Fitler v. Shotwell (7 W. & S. 14),
144.
Fitzgerald v. Brandt (36 Neb. 683;
54 N. W. Rep. 993), 877.
Fitzgerald \. Hart (17 S. W. Eep.
369), 11.
Fitzgerald v. Williams (148 Mass.
463), 50.
Fitzgibbons v. Brown (48 Me. 169),
10.
Fitzsimons v. Johnson (90 Tenn. 416),
159.
Fitzwater Peerage Case (10 CI. &
Fin. 193), 139.
Flack V. Andrews (86 Ala. 395), 146.
Flagg V. Mason (141 Mass. 64), 330.
Flagg V. People (40 Mich. 706), 95.
Flagler v. Wheeler (40 Hun, 125), 70.
Flanagan v. People (52 N. Y. 467),
231. ,
Flanagin v. Champion (1 Green Ch.,
N. J., 51), 68.
Flanders v. Fay (40 Vt. 316), 214.
Flanigan v. Phelps (42 Minn. 186),
138.
Flannigan v. Neal (67 Tex. 629), 150a.
Flato V. Mulhall (73 Mo. 533), 330,
331.
Fleischner v. Kubli (30 Greg. 333), 79.
Fleming v. Latham (48 Kan. 773), 13,
36.
Fleming v. McClure (1 Brev. 428),
243.
Ixxii
TABLE OF CASES.
Heferenees are to sections.
Fleming v. Richardson (13 La. Ann.
414), 136.
Fleming v. Shepherd (88 Ga. 338),
368.
Fleming v. Stearns (Idwa, 1890, 44
N. W. Rep. 376), 68.
Fletcher v. Braddyle (3 Stark. 64),
230.
Fletcher V. Fuller (130 U.'S. 5.34, 551,
552), 226. _
Fletcher v. Memsur (5 Ind. 267), 128.
Fletcher v. State (Ga., 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 100), 6.
Flinn v. McGonnigle (9 W. & S., Pa.,
75), 130.
Flint V. Clinton (13 N. H. 480), 131.
Flint V. Kennedy (33 Fed. Rep. 830),
337.
Flint V. Sheldon (13 Mass. 443), 223.
Flint's Estate, In re (Cal., 1898, 34
Pac. Rep. 8G3), 178.
Flood V. Mitchell (68 N. Y. 507), 337.
Flora V. Lee (5 111. App. 629), 143a.
Flower v. State (39 Ark. 209), 250.
Floyd V. Hamilton (33 Ala. 235), 74.
Floyd V. Ricks (14 Ark. 286), 142,
337.
Fluharty v. Beatty (23 W. Va. 698),
77.
Flynn v. Coffee (13 Allen, Mass.,
133), 332.
Flynt V. Bodenhamer (80 N. C. 205),
143.
Fogal V. Page (59 Hun, 625), 309.
Fogal V. Perio (10 Bosw., N. Y., 100),
107.
Fogg V. Child (13 Barb,, N. Y., 246),
73a.
Fogg V, Dennis (3 Humph. , Tenn. , 47),
131-139a.
Folger V. Mitchell (3 Pick., Mass.,
396), 263.
Folk V. Vara (9 Rich. Eq. 303), 336.
FoUansbee v. "Walker (73 Pa. St. 330),
313.
FoUett V. Jeffereyes (1 Price, N. S., 3),
174.
Folsom V. Cressy (73 Me. 270), 146.
Folsom V. Freeborn (13 R. I. 305),
239.
Fonda v. Burton (63 Vt. 355), 207.
Fontaine v. Sav. Inst. (57 Mo. 552),
336.
Foot v. Beecher (78 N. Y. 155), 66.
Foot V. Silliman (77 Tex. 368), 130.
Foote V. Bently (44 N. Y. 166), 30.
Footman v. Prendergast (3 Strob.
Eq.,S. C, 317), 166.
Forbes v. Darling (94 Mich. 631), 320.
Forbes v. Howard (4 R. L 364), 188,
199.
Forbes v. McHaffle (33 Neb. 743),
150.
Forbes v. Wale (1 W. Bl. 532), 304.
Forbes v. Willard (37 How. Pr. 193),
354a.
Force v. Dutcher (23 N. J. Eq. 453>,
308.
Ford V. Cunningham (87 Cal. 409),
30, 130.
Ford V. Finney (35 Ga. 338), 863.
Ford V. Ford (7 Humph. 93), 349.
Ford V. State (Ga., 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 667), 351.
Fordyce v. McCants (51 Ark. 509), 50.
Fordyce v. Withers (1 Tex. Civ, App.
540; 30 S. W. Rep. 766), 8,
Forehand V. State (51 Ark. 553; H
S. W. Rep. 766), 343.
Forehand v. State (13 S. W. Rep.
728; 56 Ark. 46), 239.
Foreman v. Weil (Ala., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 815), 88.
Forrester v. Parker (14 Daly, 208),
134.
Forsuith v. State (31 N. H. 434), 232.
Forsyth v. Doolittle ^120 U. S. 73),
188.
Fort Smith Oil Co. v. Slover (Ark.,
1894, 34 S. W. Rep. 106), 57, 73a.
Fort Wayne v. Coombs (107 Ind. 75),
185.
Forth Worth, etc. Co. v. Greathoose
(83 Tex, 104), 188, 198.
Fort Worth, etc. Co. v, Hurd (Tex.,
1894, 21 S. W. Rep. 995), 199.
TABLE OF CASKS.
Ixxiii
Beferences are to sections.
Fort Worth, etc. Co. v. Thompson
(Tex., 1S93, 31 S. W. Rep. 137),
198.
Fort Worth & D. C. Ey. Co. v. Wil-
son (24 S. W. Rep. 686 ; 3 Tex.
Civ. App. 583), 19S.
Fort Worth R. R. Co. v. Bank (84
Tex. 369), 220.
Foscue V. Lyon (55 N. Y. 621), /«38.
Fqss V. Heinkel (Cal., 1890, 35 Pac.
Rep. 762), 116.
Fossack V. Moody (39 111. App. 17),
311.
Foster v. Beals-(31 N. Y. 347), 314.
Foster v. Dickinson (64 Vt. 233 ; 34
Atl. Rep. 353), 98, 188, 333, 348,
871.
Foster v. Hall (13 Pick. 89, 93), 168,
174.
Foster v. Noilson (3 Pet. 314), 343.
Foster v. Pierce (11 Cush. 438, 439),
354.
Foster v. Shaw (7 S. & R. 163), 134.
Foster v. State (Miss., 1893, 12 S.
Rep. 822), 344.
Foster v. Thrasher (45 Ga. 517), 69.
Foster v. Worthington (146 Mass.
607), 350.
Foster's Will (34 Mich. 337), 38a.
Fountain v. Menard (Minn., 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 601), 262.
Fotheringham v. Adams Ex. Co. (34
Fed. Rep. 646), 176.
Foundry v. Hovey (21 Pick. 453),
288.
Fourth Nat. Bank v. Francklyn (130
U. S. 751), 343.
Fowler v. Insurance Co. (6 Cow.,
N. Y., 673), 10.
Fowler v. Merrill (11 How., U. S.,
375), 361.
Fowler v. Parks (48 Fed. Rep. 789),
241.
Fowler v. Richardson (33 111. App.
253), 211.
Fowler v. Savage (3 Conn. 90), 157.
Fowler V. Schafer (69 Wis. 33; 33
N. W. Rep. 393), 58.
Fowler v. Smith (153 Pa. St. 039),
314, 309.
Fowler v. Stimpson (79 Tex. 611),
115.
Fowler v. Strawberry Hill (74 Iowa,
644 ; 38 N. W. Rep. 531), 342.
Fox V. Baltimore Co. (34 W. Va.
466), 35, 37.
Fox V. Com. (Ky., 1891, 1 S. W.
Rep. 396), 349.
Fox V. Jones (7 B. & C. 732), 140.
Fox V. McComb (63 Hun, 638), 307.
Fox V. Norton (9 Mich. 307), 69.
Fox V. Benin. W. L. & Color Works
(92 Mich. 243; 52 N. W. Rep.
623), 194, 195, 198.
Fox V. Railroad Co. (53 N. W. Rep.
633 ; 92 Mich. 243), 341.
Fox V. Reid (3 Johns. 477), 138.
Fox V. Spring L. Co. (89 Mich. 387),
11.
Foxv. Whitney (16 Mass. 118), 311.
Foxcroft V. Nevins (4 Greenl. 73),
73.
Foy V. Blackstone (31 111. 538), 205.
Foye V. Patch (132 Mass. 103), 139.
Frace v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co.
(23 N. Y. S. 958), 200.
Fraedrich v. Flieth (64 Wis. 184),
344.
Fraley v. Bentley (1 Dak. 25), 308.
Franceston v. Deering (41 N. H. 443),
346.
Francis v. Kirkpatrick Co. (53 Fed.
Rep. 834), 331.
Francis v. Ocean Ins.' Co. (6 Cowen,
439), 143.
Francis v. Roosa (151 Mass. 533), 343.
Francisco v. Benepe (6 Mont. 343),
373.
Frank v. Reuter (32 S. W. Rep. 813),
31.
Frank v. Riggs (93 Ala. 353), 263.
Frankfort v. Anderson (3 A. K.
Marsh. 933), 131.
Franklin v. Baker (48 Ohio St. 396),
350.
Franklin v. State (69 Ga. 42), 38a.
Ixxiy
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
Franklin Sav. Bank v. Taylor (33
N. E. Rep. 397), 151.
Franz Falk Brew. Co. v. Hirst (78
Tex. 192), 151.
Frary v. Gusha (59 Vt. 257), 223.
Fraser v. Marsh (3 Stark. 41), 73.
Frayds v. Worms (10 C. B. 149),
158.
Frazer v. Phelps (3 Sandf., N. Y.,
741), 315.
Frazer v. State (19 S. W. Rep. 838 ;
56 Ark. 342), 351.
Frazier v. Railroad (38 Pa. St. 104),
10.
Frazier v. State (56 Ark. 242), 351.
Frear v. Evertsen (20 Johns. 143), 70,
288.
Frederick v. Case (28 111. App. 215),
199.
Freel v. Market St. etc. Co. (Cal.,
1893, 31 Pac. Rep. 730), 178.
Freeland v. Herron (7 Cranch, 147),
79.
Freeman v. Adderson (119 U. S. 187),
157.
Freeman v. Britton (3 Harr., N. J.,
191), 311.
Freeman v. Fogg (82 Mo. 408), 7.
Freeman v. Grant (132 N. Y. 33), 24.
Freeman v. Person (106 N, C. 251),
135.
Freeman v. Phillips (4 M. & S. 486,
497), 113, 114.
Freeman v. Thayer (33 Me. 76), 218.
Freeman v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (144
Mass. 573; 13 N. B. Rep. 373),
198.
Freeport v. Penrod (53 N. W. Rep.
74; 35 Neb. 373), 355.
Freer v. Williams (7 Baxt. 550, 556),
348.
French v. McGinnis (69 Tex. 19), 107,
333.
French v. Wade (35 Kan. 391), 73a.
French v. Ware (Vt., 1893, 36 Atl.
Rep. 1096), 168.
French v. Wilkinson (93 Mich. 333 ;
53 N. W. Rep. 530), 854.
Frezinski v. Newborg (43 111. App.
406), 186.
Frick V. Mill Co. (Kan., 1893, 32 Pac.
Rep. 1103), 214.
Frieberg v. Donovan (33 111. App. 63),
77.
Frieden v. Lahens (3 Abb. App. Deo.
Ill), 363.
Friedman v. Railway Co. (7 Phila.
303), 102.
Friess v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co.
(67 Hun, 205), 354.
Frisk V. Reigelman (43 Minn. 137),
150a.
Fritch V. State (Ga., 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 103), 234.
Fritz V. Hathaway (19 Atl. Rep.
1011 ; 26 W. N. C. 273), 355.
Fritzler v. Robinson (70 Iowa, 300),
333.
Frizzell v. State (Tex., 1891, 16 S.
W. Rep. 751), 39.
Frost v. Blanchard (97 Mass. 155),
212.
Frost V. Cattle Co. (81 Tex. 505), 136,
210.
Frostburg, etc. v. Brace (51 Md. 508),
136.
Fruiu V. Railroad (89 Mo. 397), 317.
Fruin Bambrick Co. v. Geist (37 Mo.
App. 509), 113.
Fry V. Bennett (38 N. Y. 334), 354.
Fry V. Com. (83 Va. 334), 10.
Fry V. Man. Trust Co. (23 Civ. Pro.
Rep. 520), 359.
Fryer v. Patrick (43 Md. 51), 222.
Fryer v. Rockefeller (63 N. Y. 268),
136.
Fuchs V, Fuchs (48 Mo. App. 18),
309.
Fuhrman v. London (13 S. & R. 386),
135.
Fiilcher v. State (13 S. W. Rep. 750;
28 Tex. App. 465), 101, 346.
Fulham v. Hours (4 Atl. Rep. 653 ;
60 Vt. 351), 141.
Fulkerson v. Holmes (117 U. S. 389,
397), 53, 108.
TABLE OF OASES.
Ixxr
Beferenoes are to sections.
Fulkerson v. Thornton. (6S Mo. 468),
308.
Fulks V. St. Louis, etc. Co, (111 Mo.
335 ; 19 S. W. Rep. 818), 350.
Fullenwider v. Fullenwider (53 Mo.
439), 237.
Fuller V. Carny (39 Hun, 47), 345.
Fuller V. Hampton (5 Conn. 416),
76.
Fuller V. Jackson (93 Mich. 197), 188.
Fuller V. Jamestown, etc. Co. (36
N. Y. S. 1078), 340.
Fuller V. Linzee (135 M^ss. 468), 233.
Fuller V. State (30 Tex. App. 559 ; 17
S. W. Rep. 1108), 350.
Fulton V. Hood (34 Pa. St. 365),
141.
Furbush v. Godwin (35 N. H. 435),
207, 340.
Furnis v. Durgin (119 Mass. 500), 9.
Furst V. Second Ave. R. Co. (73 N. Y.
543), 73a.
Furst V. State (47 N. W. Rep. 1116;
31 Neb. 403), 93.
Furton v. N. Y. Recorder (33 N. Y.
S. 766; 3 Misc. Rep. 314), 186.
Futch V. State (90 Ga. 472; 16 S. E.
Rep. 103), 341.
G.
Gablick v. People (40 Mich. 393),
326.
Gadbois v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R.
R. Co. (75 Iowa, 530), 341.
Gaddis v. State (Ga., 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 931), 376.
Gadsden v. Whaley (14 S. C. 310),
365.
Gady v. State (83 Ala. 51), 338.
Gaffield v. Scott (40 111. App. 380),
71.
Gage V. Smith (27 Conn. 7), 339.
Gainard v. Rochester City R. R. Co.
(3 N. Y. S. 470), 368.
Gaines v. Catron (1 Humph., Tenn.,
' 514), 136.
Gaines v. Russ (30 Fla. 157), 304.
F
Gainesworth v. Caldwell (81 Ga. 76),
317.
Gainsey v. Rhodes (63 Hun, 633), 79.
Galbraith v. Gallivan (78 Mo. 453),
135.
Galbraith v. McLain (84 111. 379),
73a.
Galbreath v. Cole (61 Ala. 139), 73a.
Galbreath v. Newton (45 Mo. App.
312), 33.
Galceran v. Noble (66 Ga. 367), 73a.
Gale V. People (36 Mich. 157), 339.
Galpin v. Page (18 Wall. 350), 284.
Gall, In re (9 N. Y. S. 436), 35.
Gall V. Gall (114 N. Y. 109), 368.
Gallagher v. Kilkeary (39 111. App.
415), 138.
Galland v. Jackman (26 Cal. 85), 129.
Gallaher v. State (33 Tex. App. 247),
334, 345.
Galle V. Tode (36 N. Y. S. 633), 174.
Gallegher v. Association (Pa., 1893,
34 Atl. Rep. 115, 138.
Galliams v. Kilfoy (94 Cal. 86), 150a.
Gallon V. Van Wormer (Tex., 1893,
21 S. W. Rep. 547), 11.
Galveston City R. Co. v. Hewitt (67
Tex. 478), 12.
Galveston, etc. Co. v. Daniels (1 Tex.
Civ. App. 695), 129.
Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v.
Smith (Tex., 1894, 24 S. W. Rep.
668), 336.
Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v.
Wesch(Tex., 1898, 23 S. W. Rep.
957), 199.
Galvin v. Meridian Nat. Bank (129
Ind. 439), 347.
Galvin v. State (93 Ind. 650), 336.
Gamble v. Ross (44 111. App. 391), 380.
Gandy v. State (33 Neb. 436; 40 N.
W. Rep. 303), 381.
Gannon v. Stevens (13 Kan. 447),
134.
Gannon's Wills, In re (3 Misc. Rep.
329), 366, 369.
Gantier v. State (Tex., 1898, 21 S. W.
Rep. 255), 56.
Ixxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Garber v. State (4 Cold., Tenn., 161,
165), 9.
Gardner v. Frieze (16 R. I. 640), 51.
Gantt V. Gantt (6 La. Ann. 667), 267.
Garden v. Creswell (3 M. & W. 319),
284.
Gardiner v. Miller (47 Gal. 570), 229.
Gardiner v. State (N. J. L., 1893,
36 Atl. Rep. 30), 6, 254.
Gardner v. Benedict (37 N. Y. S. 3),
326.
Gardner v. Col. Ins. Co. (7 Johns.,
N. Y., 511), 149.
Gardner v. Eberhart (83 111. 316), 30.
Gardner v. Gardner (L. R. 3 App.
Gases, 723, 724), 235.
Gardner v. Minea (47 Minn. 295), 176.
Gardoni v. Woodward (44 Kan.
758), 9.
Gardt v. Brown (13 111. 475), 317.
Garfield v. Knight's Ferry, etc. Co.
(14 Cal. 35), 73a.
Garland v. Denver (11. Colo. 534), 243.
Garling v. Van Allen (55 N. Y. 31),
340.
Garmon v. State (66 Miss. 196), 330.
Garn v. Working (Ind., 1893, 31 N.
E. Rep. 831), 232.
Garner v. Myrick (30 Miss. 448), 76.
Garner v. State (?8 Fla. 113), 9.
Garrigan v. Dickey (1 Ind. App. 431,
37 N. E. Rep. 713), 371.
Garside v. Watch Case Co. (17 R. I.
691), 343.
Garth v. Caldwell (73 Mo. 622), 237.
Gartrell v. Stafford (12 Neb. 545), 139.
Gartside v. Outram (36 L. J. Ch. 113),
174.
Garvey v. Wayson (22 Md. 178), 157.
Garvin v. State (53 Miss. 207), 345.
Garvin \« Wells (8 Iowa, 286), 248.
Gas Co. V. O'Brien (118 111. 174), 192.
Gastrell v. Phillips (64 Miss. 473),
130, 121.
Gates v. Chicago, etc. Co. (44 Mo.
App. 488), 188.
■Gates V. Fleischer (67 Wis. 504 ; 30
N. W. Rep. 674), 193.
Gates V. Johnson (36 Tex. 144), 338.
Gates V. Salmon (46 Cal. 461), 363.
Gaul V. Willis (26 Pa. St. 359), 311.
Gaunt V. State (50 N. J. L. 491), 345,
Gauntlet v. Carter (17 Beav. 590),
150.
Gay V. Bates (99 Mass. 263), 75.
Gay V. Lloyd (1 Greene, Iowa, 78),
147.
Gay V. Palmer (1 Esp. 185), 68.
Gayheart v. Patten (Ky., 1893, 20
S. W. Rep. 912), 380.
Gayle v. Ferryman (Tex., 1894, 24 S.
W. Rep. 850), 31.
Gaynor v. Old Colony R. R. (lOO
Mass. 208), 13.
Gazam v. Royce (78 Ga. 513), 356.
Gee V. Culver (13 Oreg. 598), 10.
Gee V. Gee (33 Miss. 190), 246.
Gee V. Scott (48 Tex. 510), 166.
Gehr v. Fisher (143 Pa. St. 311), 53.
Gelston v. Hoyt (3 Wheat. 246), 158.
Genet v. Lawyer (61 Barb. 21), 309.
Gentry v. State (5 S. W. Rep. 660;
24 Tex. App. 80), 89.
George v. Joy (19 N. H. 544), 337.
George v. Pilcher (28 Gratt., Va.,
269), 352.
Georgia, etc. Co. v. Miller (Ga.,
1893, 16 S. E. Rep. 939), 20.
Georgia, etc. Co. v. Strickland (80
Ga. 776; 6 S. E. Rep. 27), 130.
Gerard v. Cowperthwait (31 N. Y. S.
1003), 213.
Gerbig v. Railroad Co. (23 N. Y. S
31; 67 Hun, 649), 198.
Gerding v. Walter (39 Mo. 436), 220.
Gerlach v. Turner (89 Cal. 446), 84.
German Ins. Co. v. Penrod (35 Neb.
273), 383.
Gernan v. Navigation Co. (66 Hun,
633; 31 N. Y. S. 371), 331.
Gerou v. Felder (15 Ala. 304), 148.
Gerry v. Post (13 How. Pr., N. Y.,
118), 333.
Gerry v. Stimpson (60 Me. 186), 313.
Gertz v. Fitchburg (137 Mass. 77),
332.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxvii
fteferences are to sections.
.Gerz V. Weber (151 Pa. St. 396), 309.
Getts V. "Watson (18 Mo. 374), 129.
Getzlafe V. Seliger (43 Wis. 297), 173.
Gibbons v. Gentry (20 Mo. 468), 135.
Gibbons v. Pickett (31 Fla. 147; 13
S. Rep. 17), 150a.
Gibbs V. Phillipson (1 R. & My. 19),
387.
Giboney v. German Ins. Co. (48 Mo.
App. 185), 366.
Gibson v. Com. (87 Pa. St. 253), 166.
Gibson v. Foote (40 Miss. 788), 246.
Gibson v. Gibson (24 Mo. 327), 51.
Gibson v. Manuf. Co. (144 Mass. 83),
143.
Gibson v. Mut. Ins. Co. (37 N. Y.
584), 816.
Gibson v. Peebles (3 McCord, 418),
60.
Gibson v. State (33 Tex. App. 414),
10, 53.
Gibson v. Stevens (9 How., U. S.,
384), 242.
Gibson v. Trowbridge (96 Ala. 357;
11 S. Rep. 365), 139, 140.
Giddings v. Phcenix Ins. Co. (90 Mo.
273), 205.
Gidney v. Logan (79 N. C. 214), 70.
Gifford V. Corrigan (117 N. Y. 257),
336.
Giflford V. Thomas (63 Vt. 34 ; 19 Atl.
Rep. 1088), 309.
Gilbert v. Anthony (1 Yerg. 69), 138.
Gilbert v. Duncan (39 N. J. L. 133,
531), 210.
Gilbert t. McGinnis (114 111. 48) 316.
Gilbert v. Simpson' (6 Daly, 34), 139a.
Gilbert v. Thompson (9 Gush. 358),
350.
Gilbert v. West End St. Ry. Co. (86
N. E. Rep. 60), 39.
Gilbraith v. Gallivan (78 Mo. 453),
136.
Gilchrist v. Bate (8 Watts, 355), 53.
Gildersleeve v. Atkinson (37 Pac.
Rep. 477, N. M., 1891), 11.
Gildersleeve v. Caraway (10 Ala.
260), 134,
Gildersleeve v. Mahoney (5 Duer, 383),
80.
Giles V. Hunter (103 N. C. 194), 223.
Giles V. Vandiver (17 S. E. Rep. 115,
Ga., 189.3), 79, 366.
Gill V. Ward (23 Ark. 16), 357.
Gilleland v. Martin (3 McLean, 490),
166.
Gillespie v. Moon (2 Johns. Ch. 585),
323.
Gilliam v. Parkinson (4 Rand., Va.,
325), 131.
Gilliam v. State (1 Head, 38), 350.
Gillim V. Daviwis Co. (Ky., 1890, 14
S. W. Rep. 838), 153.
Gillis V. Wilmington R. Co. (13 S. E,
Rep. 11), 130.
Gil man v. Sheets (48 N. W. Rep. 299),
231.
Oilman v. Stafford (50 Vt. 723), 188.
Gilmanton v. Ham (38 N. H. 108),
345.
Gilmer v. Marks (46 Fed. Rep. 333),
153.
Gilmer v. Stone (130 U. S. 586), 222.
Gilmore v. Bangs (55 Ga. 403), 205.
Gilmore, In re (154 Pa. St. 583), 320.
Gilmore, In re (81 Cal. 340), 322.
Gilpin V. Daly (58 Hun, 610), 359.
Gilson V. Powell (13 Miss. 713), 77.
Gilston V. Hoyt (3 Wheat. 246), 158.
Gilyard v. State (Ala., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 891), 350.
Gindrat v. People (138 III. 108', 37
N. E. Rep. 1085), ; 9.
Ginterman v. People (111., 1893, 28
N. W. Rep. 1067), 349.
Girard v. Kalamazoo (92 Mich. 610:
53 N. W. Rep. 1031), 186.
Gitchell V. Ryan (24 111. App. 872),
140.
Givens v. State (Tex., 1893, 31 S. W.
Rep. 44), 383.
Glande v. Post (43 La. Ann. 865),
158.
Glass V. Blackwell (48 Ark. 55), 151.
Glass V. Hulburt (103 Mass. 42), 322.
Glassell v. Mason (33 Ala. 719), 130.
Ixxviii
TABLE OF OASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Gleason v. Hamilton (138 N. Y. 353),
158.
Glenn v. Ligett (47 Fed. Rep. 473),
50.
Glenn v. Rogers (3 Md. 312), 127.
Glines v. Iron Hall (33 Civil Pro. R.
437; 20 N, Y. S. 275), 150a.
Globe Printing Co. v. Stable (33 Mo.
App. 451), 233.
Glover v. HoUiday (109 Mo. 108), 38.
Glover v. Thomas (75 Tex. 506), 32.
Goble V. Grant (3 Green Ch. 629),
331.
Goddard v. Gardner (28 Conn. 172),
168.
Goddard v. Gloninger (5 Watts, Pa. ,
209), 139.
Goddard v. Hill (33 Me. 582), 205.
Goddard v. Ingram (3 Q. B. 839), 69.
Godding v. Orcutt (44 Vt. 54), 60.
Godfrey v. Godfrey (17 Ind. 6), 343.
Godfrey v. Knodle (44 111. App. 638),
366.
Godfrey v. Templeton (3 Pickle,
, Tenn., 161; 6 S. W. Rep. 47),
308.
Godwin v. Francis (1 L. R. C. P.
293), 3.3.
Goetz V. Kansas City Bank (119 U.
S. 318; 7S. Ct. 318), 73a.
Goff V. Bank (47 N. W. Rep. 190 ; 78
Wis. 106), 57.
Gofif V. State Bank (84 Wis. 369 ; 54
N. W. Rep. 733), 60.
Goldberg v. Wolff (10 N. Y. S. 544),
50.
Golden v. State (25 Ga. 537), 80.
Golden Gate Min. Co. v. Yuba Co.
(65 Cal. 187), 234.
Colder v. Mueller (33 111. App. 537),
77.
Goldman v. State (75 Md. 631; 23
Atl. Rep. 1097), 11.
Goldmark v. Metro. Opera H. Co.
(67 Hun, 652), 363.
Goldsmith v. Bane (8 N. J. L. 87),
139.
Goldsmith v. Picard (37 Ala. 143), 10.
Goldsmith v. Sawyer (46 Cal. 209),
243.
Goldsmith v. State (Tex., 1893, 23
S. W. Rep. 405), 383, 315.
Goldstein v. Black (50 Cal. 463, 465),
140.
Goldstone v. Davidson (19 Cal. 41),
147.
Goldstrohm v. Steiner (15 Pa. St. 38),
386.
Gommersol v, Cren (10 N. Y. S. 231),
75.
Goneding v. Hammond (49 Fed. Rep.
443), 206.
Gonring v. Railroad Co. (47 N. W.
Rep. 18; 78 Wis. 16), 283.
Gonzales v. State (30 Tex. App. 203),
283.
Gonzalia v. Bartelsman (143111. 634;
33 N. E. Rep. 533), 139,
Gooch V. Bryant (13 Me. 386), 73a.
Good V, Knox (33 Atl. Rep. 520; 64
Vt. 97), 347.
Goodbut V. Scheeler (3 Ind, App. 318),
23.
Goode V. State (32 Tex. Crim. Rep.
505; 24 S. W. Rep. 102), 347.
Goodheart v. Ransley (38 Wkly. L.
Bui. 227), 231.
Goodhue v. Bartlett (5 McLean, 186),
139a, 360.
Goodhue v. Clark (37 N. H. 535),
222.
Gooding v. Underwood (89 Mich.
187), 82.
Goodman v. Kennedy (10 Neb. 370),
340.
Goodrich v. Tracy (43 Vt. 314), 71.
Goodrich v. Weston (103 Mass. 362),
30.
Goodright v. Mass (2 Cowp. 591),
113.
Goodsell V. Taylor(41 Minn. 207), 187.
Goodtitle v. Clayton (4 Burr. 8224),
328.
Goodwin v. Appleton (33 M^. 453),
239.
Goodwin V. Fox (129 U. S. 601), 202.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxix
Befereuces are to sections.
(loodwin V. Goodwin (59 N. H. 548),
311.
Goodwin v. Jack (63 Me. 416), 106.
Goodwin v. Monds- (106 N. C. 448),
150a.
Goodwin v. O'Brien (6 N. Y. S. 339;
53 Hun, 637), 60.
Goodwin v. Smith (67 Ind. 101), 376.
Goodwin v. State (13 Miss. 520), SB.
Goodwin v. State (96 Ind. 550), 9.
Goodwin v. State (60 Ga. 509), 166.
Goodwin Company's Appeal (117 Pa.
St. 537), 171.
Goodj-ear v.Vosburgh (63 Barb. 154),
141, 195.
Goodykoontz v. Olsen (54 Iowa, 174),
13S. ,
Gordon, In re (N. J., 1893, 36 Atl.
Rep. 268), 141.
Gordon v. Bank (144 U. S. 97), 138.
Gordon v. Hobart (2 Sumn. 401), 343.
Gordon v. Leech (81 Ky. 339), 135,
136.
Gordon v. Parmlee (15 Gray, Mass.,
413), 37.
Gordon v. Preston (1 Watts, Pa.,
385), 131.
Gordon v. Price (10 Ired. L., N. C,
385), 139.
Gordon v. Ritnour (87 Mo. 54), 70.
Gordon v. Tweedy (74 Ala. 382), 237.
Gorev. Lewis (109 N. C. 539; 15
S. E. Rep. 909), 316.
Gore V. State (53 Ark. 285), 346.
Gorgasv. Hertz (150 Pa. St. 538), 127,
130.
Gorbam v. Canton (5 Me. 266), 56.
Gorham v. Carroll (3 Litt., Ky., 121),
311.
Gorman v. Stanton (5 Mo. App. 585),
136.
Gormly v. Bringam (138 N. Y. 633),
34, 242.
Gorsuch V. Rutledge (70 Md. 272),
366.
Goshen v. England (119 Ind. 368), 80,
194.
Goss V. Turner (21 Vt. 437), 248.
Gough V. St. John (16 Wend., N. Y.,
646), 10.
Gould V. Combs (1 0. B, 543), 218.
Gould V. Conway (59 Barb., N. Y.,
355), 58.
Gould V. Jones (1 W. Bl. 884), 139.
Gould V. West (33 Tex. 338), 83.
Goulding v. Hoyt (34 N. H. 148),
158.
Gove V. Downer (59 Vt. 139), 333.
Gove V. State (58 Ala. 391), 97.
Gower v. Emery (6 Shepl., Me., 79),
157.
Gower v. Stearnes (2 Whart., Pa.,
75), 333.
Grace v. Lynch (80 Wis. 166), 314.
Grace v. Nesbitt (109 Mo. 3), 67.
Gracie v. Morris (22 Ark. 415), 30.
Grady v. Gosline (48 Ohio St. 665),
150a.
Grafton v. Reed (34 W. Va. 172), 143.
Graham v. Anderson (43 111. 514),
244.
Graham v. Gautier(21 Tex. 112), 249.
Graham v. Graham (23 W. Va. 36),
222.
Graham v. Graham (10 Ired. 319),
269.
Graham v. Larimer (83 Cal. 173; 23
Pac. Rep. 286), 341.
Graham v. McReynolds (90 Tenn.
673), 333, 341, 366.
Graham v. Selover (59 Barb. , N. Y. ,
313), 69.
Graham v. Thompson (55 Ark. 296),
83.
Graham v. Whiteley (3 Dutch,, N. J.,
254), 158.
Gramm v. Boener (56 Ind. 497), 193.
Grand R. etc. Co. v. Huntley (38
Mich. 537), 52, 198.
Grand Trunk, etc. Co. v. Richardson
(91 U. S. 470), 329.
Granger v, Batcheldor (54 Vt. 348),
74.
Grant v. Hughes (96 N. 0. 177; 2 S.
E, Rep. 339), 157.
Grant v. Levan (4 Pa. St. 393), 142.
Ixxx
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferenoes are to sections.
Grant v. McLachlin (4 Johns. 34),
158.
Grant v. Oliver (91 Gal. 158), 30, 136.
Grant v. State (15 S. E. Rep. 488; 89
Ga. 393), 330.
Grant v. Thompson (4 Conn. 203),
197.
Grantier v. Austin (66 Hun, 157), 6.
Grass v. Hurlbert (102 Mass. 34, 41),
, 233.
Grattan v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co.
(80 N. Y. 281, 297), 478.
Gratz V. Gratz (4 Eawle, Pa., 411),
262.
Grau V. Spangenberg (Minn., 1893,
54 N. W. Rep. 933), 254.
Graves v. Battle Creek (95 Mich. 266;
54N. W. Rep. 757), 203, 211.
Graves v. Blondell (70 Me. 90), 84.
Graves v. Davenport (50 Fed. Rep.
881), 347.
Graves v. Dudley (20 N. H. 76), 211.
Graves v. Griffith (3 Wash. St. 742),
378.
Graves v. Merchants', etc. Bank (83
Iowa, 637; 49 N. W. Rep. 65),
234.
Graves v. People (18 Colo. 170; 33
Pac. Rep. 63), 6, 54, 101, 103.
Graves v. Safford (41 111. App. 659),
309.
Graves v. Santv?ay (6 N. Y. S. 892 ;
52 Hun, 613), 343.
Gray v. Daus (27 Conn. 447), 146.
Gray v. Kauffman (83 Tex. 65), 136.
Gray v. McLoughlin (26 Iowa, 279),
52.
J Gray v. Pentland (3 S. & R. 33),
' 175.
Gray v. Pingrey (17 Vt. 419), 160.
Graybeal v. Gardner (146 111. 337; 34
N. E. Rep. 538), 248.
Grayson v. Brooks (64 Miss. 410),
208.
Grayson v. Buchanan (88 Va. 251;
13 S. E. Rep. 457), 376.
Greathouse Case (2 Abb., XJ. S., 383),
240.
Great W. R. R. Co. v. Bacon (30 111.
347), 350.
Great W. R. R. Co. v. Haworth (39
111. 349), 198.
Greasons v. Davis (9 Iowa, 319), 143.
Greaves v. Hunter (3 C. & P. 477),
139.
Green v. Abraham (43 Ark. 430),'
135.
Green v. Armstrong (1 Denio, 550),
363.
Green v. Batson (71 Wis. 57), 308.
Green v. Beckney (3 Ind. App. 39),
138, 378.
Green v., Casilk (16 Md. 556), 337.
Green v. Cawthorne (4 Dev. L., N.
C, 409), 80, 334.
Green v. Edick (56 N. Y. 696), 308.
Green v. Godfrey (44 Me. 35), 136.
Green v. Gould (3 Allen, Mass., 465),
374.
Green V. Green (145 111. 364; 33 N.
E. Rep. 941), 269.
Green v. Mill (60 Vt. 442), 60.
Green v. Mumper (138 111. 434; 28 N.
E. Rep. 1075), 115.
Green v. North Buffalo (56 Pa. St.
110), 73a.
Green v. Pratt (11 Conn. 305), 60.
Green v. Sherrod (105 N. C. 197),
233.
Greon v. State (88 Ga. 516), 89.
Green v. Vardiman (3 Blackf., Ind.,
331), 304.
Greene v. Phenix Ins. Co. (134 111.
310), 346.
Greene v. State (Tex., 1891, 12 S. W.
Rep. 873), 352.
Greenfield v. People (85 N. Y. 75),
10.
Greening v. Keel (84 Tex. 326), 361.
Greenleaf v. Dubuque R. R. Co. (30
Iowa, 301), 53.
Greenleaf v. Quincy (13 Me. 11), 69.
Greenough v. Cass (64 N. H. 326),
223.
Greenough v. Greenough (11 Pa. St.
489), 138.
TABLE OF OASES.
Ixxxi
Keferenoes are to sections;
Greenough v. Guskell (1 My. & K.
98), 174.
Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Waterman (54
Fed. Rep. 839), 316.
Greer v. Covington (Ky., 1887, 2 S.
W. Rep. 323), 34.
Greer v. Greer (58 Hun, 251), 168,
171.
Greer v. Higgins (30 Kan. 430), 850.
Greer v. Louisville, etc. Co. (Ky.,
1893, 31 S. W. Rep. 649), 145.
Gregg V. Mallett (111 N. C. 74; 15
S. E. Rfep. 936), 236, 376.
Gregory v. Coleman (3 Tex. Civ.
A pp. 166; 33 a W. Rep. 181),
370.
Gregory v. Walker (38 Ala. 26), 266.
Grey v. McDaniel (6 Bush, Ky., 480),
233.
Grider v. Mortgage Co. (Ala., 1«93,
12 S. Rep. 775), 139.
Gridley v. College (137 N. Y. 527),
232.
Griel v. Lomax (94 Ala. 641), 11.
Griesheimer v. Tanenbaum (8 N. Y.
S. 582: 55 Hun, 604), 60.
Griff en v. Griff en (125 111. 430; 17 N.
E. Rep. 783), 336, 309.
Griffin v. O'Neill (47 Kan. 116), 373.
Griffin v. Rice (1 Hilt., N. Y., 184),
316.
Griffin v. Salmon (6 Daly, 531), 218.
Griffin v. Smith (45 Ind. 866), 168.
Griffin V. State (26 Tex. App. 157;
20 S. W. Rep. 553), 283, 849.
Griffin, etc. Co. v. Joannes (80 Wis.
601), 11.
Griffing v. Harris (9 Port., Ala., 325),
311.1
Griffith V. Avery (11 A. & B. 833),
189a.
Griffith V. Furry (30 111. 351), 331.
Griffith V. Happersberger (86 Cal.
605), 151.
Griffith V. Sauls (77 Tex. 630; 14 S.
W. Rep. 230), 80.
Griffith V. State (36 Tex. App. 157),
353.
Griffith V. Williams (1 T. R. 710), 74.
Griffith V. Williams (1 M. & R. 133),
140.
Grignon's Lessee v. Astor (2 How.,
U. S., 319), 233.
Grimmel v. Chicago, etc. Co. (73
Iowa, 93), 198. .
Grimmer v. Carlton (93 Cal. 189), 76.
Griranan v. Dean (63 Tex. 318), 83,
Grimwood v. Barrit (6 T. R. 460), 20.
Grinnell v. Denison (12 Wis. 402),
276.
Griswold V. Gebbie (126 Pa. St. 358),
93.
Griswold v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co.
(14 Daly, 484), 83.
Griswold v. N. Y. Cent. R. E. Co.
(115 N. Y. 61), 193.
Griswold v. Pitcairn (2 Cow. 85),
140.
Griswold v. State (34 Wis. 144), 199.
Groom v. State (23 Tex. App. 83), 33.
Gross v. Drager (66 Wis. 150), 208.
Gross V. Reddy (45 Pa. St. 406), 166.
Grover, etc. Co. v. Polhemus (34
Mich. 247), 73a.
Groves v. State (76 Ga. 808), 23.
Grub V. Simpson (6 Heisk., Tenn.,
93), 367.
Grunn v. Howeth (35 Ala. 144), 146.
Grunn v. Peakes (36 Minn. 177), 148.
Grusenmeyer v. Logansport (76 Ind.
549), 289.
Guardians v. Greene (5 Binn. 558),
320.
Guedel v. People (43 111. 836), 33.
Guertin v. Momblen (144 111. 32 ; 32
N. E. Rep. 49), 129.
Guetig V. State (66 Ind. 91), 249.
Guidery v. Green (95 Cal. 650), 208,
212.
Guion V. Williams (7 N. Y. S. 786 ;
55 Hun, 605), 246.
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Patter-
son (Tex., 1894, 24 S. W. Rep.
349), 199.
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wright
(1 Tex. Civ, App. 102), 199.
Gulf, etc. Co. V. Ellis (54 Fed. Rep.
481), 326.
Ixxxii
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferenoes are to sections.
Gulf, etc. Co. V. Hepner (83 Tex. 70 ;
18 S. W. Rep. 441), 7.
Gulf, etc. Co. V. Johnson (83 Tex.
628; 19 S. W. Rep. 151), 18.
Gulf, etc. Co. V. Norfleet (78 Tex.
881 ; 14 S. W. Rep. 703), 202.
Gulf, etc. Co. V. Ross (Tex., 1891, 16
S. W. Rep. 536), 253.
Gulf, etc. Co. V. York (74 Tex. 864;
12 S. W. Rep. 151), 18.
Gulick V. Gulick (39 N. J. L. 516), 171.
Gunn V. Ohio, etc. Co. (37 W. Va.
421), 344.
Gunn V. Peakes (36 Minn. 177), 142.
Gunn V. Wade (65 Ga. 587), 121.
Gunn, .In re (50 Kan. 125), 288.
Gunn, In re (50 Kan. 155), 284.
Gunnison v. Gunnison (41 N. H. 121),
276,
Gunter v. State (83 Ala. 96), 350.
Gunter v. Watson (4 Jones' N. C. L.
455), 840.
Gunther v. Bennett (73 Ind. 384; 19
Atl. Rep. 1048), 309.
Gutchess V. Gutohess (66 Barb., N. Y. ,
483), 73a.
Guthrie v. Anderson (48 Kan. 381),
263.
Gutsch T. Mcllhargey (69 Mich. 377 ;
37 N. W. Rep. 803), 341.
Gutzell V. Pennie (95 Cal. 598), 281.
Guy V. Hull (3 Murph., N. C, 150),
311.
Guy V. Manuel (89 N. C. 83), 76.
Guy V. Mead (33 N. C. 463), 60.
Guy V. Metcalf (83 Tex. 37), 383.
Guyette v. Bolton (46 Vt. 228), 189a.
Guyot V. Butts (4 Wend. 583), 3.
Gwyn V. Butler (17 Colo. 114), 380.
Gwyn V. State (64 Miss. 334), 280.
G V. G (L. R. 2 P. & D. 287),
203.
H.
Habout V. Jones (5 Wash. St. 385),
359.
Hackett v. Collender (33 Vt. 97), 79.
Hackett v. Martin (8 Greenl., Me,,
77), 70.
Hackley v. Patrick (3 Johns. 686), 69.
Haddock v. Wilmarth (5 N. H. 187),
311.
Hadgo V. Gooden (18 Ala. 718), 352.
Hadley v. Howe (46 Vt. 112), 115.
Hadrick v. Heslop (12 Jur. 600), 302.
Haff V. Spicer (3 Paige, N. Y., 190),
357.
Hagan v. Insurance Co. (81 Iowa,
321), 250.
Haggin v. Haggin (35 Neb. 575), 231.
Hagnes v. Porter (45 111. 318), 142.
Hahn v. Guardian Assur. Co. (Oreg.,
1893, 33 Pac. Rep. 683), 200.
Hahn v. Schmidt (64 Cal. 384), 51.
Hahn v. State (13 Tex. App. 383),
183.
Haight V. Proprietors (4 Wash. C. C.
601, 606), 356.
Haights V. Arnold (48 Md. 513), 358.
Haile v. Palmer (5 Mo. 403), li4.
Haines v. Dennett (11 N. H. 180),
311.
Haines v. Hanrahan (105 Mass. 480),
342.
Haines v. Sairers (93 Mich. 440), 13,
336.
Haines v. Territory (3 Wyo. 166),
330.
Haines v. Thompson (31 N. Y. S.
991 ; 3 Misc. Rep. 385), 306, 370.
Haines v. Watts (N. J., 1893, 36 Atl.
Rep. 572), 308.
Haish V. Pay son (107 111. 365), 188.
Hal beck v. Boyleston (117 Mass. 469),
144.
Halbert v. Skyler (1 A. K. Marsh.
368), 342.
Haloomb v. Stubblefleld (76 Tex.
310), 150a.
Hale V. Everett (53 N. H. 55), 316.
Hale V. Huse (10 Gray, Mass., 99), 77,
314.
Hale V. MerrjU (27 Vt. 738), 276.
Hale V. Smith (6 Greenl., Me., 416),
303.
Hale's Ex'rs v. Ard (48 Pa. St. 32), 60.
Half V. Curtis (68 Tex. 640; 5 S. W.
Rep.. 541), 188.
TABLE OF OASES.
IxKxiii
Beferences are to sections.
Halfin V. Winkleman (18 S. W. Rep.
433; 83 Tex. 385), 20, 226.
Hall V. Aitkin (35 Neb. 360^, 143.
Hall V. Brackett (62 N. H. 509), 73.
Hall V. Brennan (19 N. Y. S. 633 ; 64
Hunj 894), 76.
Hall V. Chicago R. Co. (53 N. W.
Rep. 247), 340.
Hall V. Com. (89 Va. 171 ; 15 S. E.
Rep. 517), 13, 101.
Hall V. Costello (48 N. H. 176), 143.
Hall V. Davis (36 N. H. 569), 317, 320.
Hall V. Eaton (139 Mass. 317), 220.
Hall V. Glidden (39 Me. 445), 60.
Hall V. Houghton (37 Me. 411), 347.
Hall V. Kintz (13 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep.
24), 358.
Hall V. Leonard (1 Pick. 31), 232.
Hall V. McKay (78 Tex. 248), 148.
Hall V. Railroad Co. (51 N. W. Rep.
150; 84 Iowa, 311), 348.
Hall V. Rankin (Iowa, 1893, 5 N. W.
Rep. 217), 188.
Hall V. Roberts (63 Hun, 473), 24.
Hall V. Solomon (61 Conn. 476), 208.
Hall V. State (31 Fla. 176; 13 S. Rep.
449), 97.
Hall V. State (133 Ind. 317), 10.
Hall V. State (31 Tex. Crim. Rep.
565), 9, 53.
Hall V. Vanier (6 Neb. 85), 314.
Hall V. Van Vranken (64 How. Pr.
407), 140.
Hall V. Williams (6 Pick., Mass., 237),
146.
Hall V. Young (87 N. H. 134), 246.
Hall, In re (1 Wall. Jr., U. S., 85), 232.
Halladay v. Hart (30 N. Y. 474), 205.
Hallam v. Corlett (71 Iowa, 446), 233.
Hallam v. Post (55 Fed. Rep. 456),
10.
Halley v. Gregg (83 Iowa, 633; 48
N. W. Rep. 974), 10.
Halley v. Webster (21 Me. 461), 231.
Halliday v. Martinett (30 Johns.,
N. Y., 168), 58.
Hallockv. Kinney (91 Mich. 57; 51
N. W. Rep. 706), 10.
Hallowell v. Hallowell (88 Ind. 251),
269.
Hallum V. Dickenson (49 Ark. 136),
146.
Halpin v. Stone (78 Wis. 183; 47 N.
W. Rep. 177), 208.
Halsey v. Sinsebaugh (15 N. Y. 485),
387.
Halstead v. Seamon (52 How. Pr.,
N. Y., 415), 77.
Haltenhof v. Haltenhof (44 111. App.
185), 231.
Hatnberger v. Root (6 W. & S., Pa.,
431), 67.
Hamburg v. Wood (18 S. W. Rep.
633, Tex., 1892), 208.
Hamilton, In re (12 N. Y. S. 708), 35.
Hamilton v. Buchanan (112 N. C.
463; 17 S. E. Rep. 159), 246.
Hamilton v. Coal Co. (61 Hun, 624),
247.
Hamilton v. Hulett (51 Minn. 208;
58 N. W. Rep. 364), 341.
Hamilton v. Iowa Co. (Iowa, 1893,
53 N. W. Rep. 496), 73a.
Hamilton v. Manhattan Ry. Co. (9
N. Y. 313), 344.
Hamilton v. Marsden (6 Binn. 45),
138.
Hamilton v. Northwood (86 Mich.
315; 40 N. W. Rep. 37), 38.
Hamilton v. Patrick (63 Hun, 74), 76.
Hamilton v. People (29 Mich. 178),
323, 349.
Hamilton v. Pitcher (53 Mo. 354),
135.
Hamilton v. Rich Hill Coal Mining
Co. (108 Mo. 364; 18 S. W. Rep.
977), 870.
Hamilton v. Ross (23 Neb. 630), 366.
Hamilton v. Smith (30 Mich. 339),
334.
Hamilton Buggy Co. v. Iowa Buggy
Co. (Iowa, 1898, 55 N. W. Rep.
496), 375.
Hamlin v. Seers (82 N. Y. 327), 83.
Hammatt v. Emerson (27 Me. 308),
73a.
Ixxxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferences are to sections.
Hammer V. State (90 Ala. 577), 101.
Hammerquist v. Swenson (44 111.
App. 637), 206.
Hammers v. Dole (61 111. 307), 135.
Hammill v. Sup. Council (153 Pa. St.
537), 309.
Hammond v. Beeson (112 Mo. 190),
79.
Hammond v. Dike (43 Minn. 273),
350.
Hammond v. Freeman (9 Ark. 62),
856.
Hammond v. Hammond (90 Ga. 527 ;
16 S. E. Rep. 365), 158.
Hammond v. Varian (54 N. Y. 398),
133, 139.
Hammond v. "Wolf (78 Iowa, 337;
43 N. W. Rep. 778), 140.
Hammond's Case (3 Greenl. 33,; 11
Am. Dec. 39), 132.
Hamon v. Huntley (4 Co wen, N. Y.,
493), 67.
Hanawalt v. State (64 Wis. 84), 345.
Hanby, In re (35 W. R. 437), 232.
Hance v. Hair (38 Ohio St. 349), 69.
Hancock v. Am. L. I. Co. (62 Mo.
36), 333, 333.
Hancock v. Flynn (8 N. Y. S. 133;
54 Hun, 638), 60, 144.
Hancock v. Kelly (81 Ala. 368), 60.
Hancock v. Leggett (115 Ind. 546),
53,
Hancock v. Moody (39 ,111. App. 17),
311.
Hancock v. O'Rourke (6 N. Y. S.
549), 141.
Hancock v. Worcester (63 Vt. 106;
18 Atl. Rep. 1041), 244.
Hancock v. Yunker (83 111. 208),
73a.
Hancock's Appeal (112 Pa. St. 533),
223.
Hand v. Swann (1 Tex. Civ. App.
341), 75.
Hand v. Weidner (115 Pa. St. 363),
136.
Handlin's Estate v. Law (34 111. App.
84), 354.
Hankins v. Grimes (13 B. Mon., Ky.,
357), 141.
Hankins v. State (39 Fla. 554; 10 S.
Rep. 833), 334.
Hankinson v. Page (3 Fed. Rep. 186),
135.
Hanley v. Donoghue (116 U. S. 4),
342.
Hanlon v. Doherty (109 Ind. 37), 171.
Hanlon v. Wilson (10 Neb. 138), 254.
Hann v. State (13 Tex. App. 383),
189a.
Hannav. Barrett (39 Kan. 446; 18
Pac. Rep. 497), 346.
Hanna v. Davis (112 Mo. 599), 188.
Hannav. Hanna (Tex., 1893, 31 S. W.
Rep. 720), 52.
Hanners v. McClelland (74 Iowa,
318), 333, 354.
Hanoff v. State (37 Ohio St. 178),
346.
Hanover F. I. Co. v. Lewis (23 Fla.
193; IS. Rep. 863), 137.
Hanscom v. Burmood (35 Neb. 504),
350.
Hansen v. Hale (44 111. App. 174), 21.
Hanson v. Holt (14 N. H. 56), 74.
Hanson v. Weber (40 Me. 194), 77.
Harbison v. Lemon (3 Blatchf. 51),
308.
Hard V. Ashley (117 N. Y. 606; S3
N. E. Rep". 606), 50, 171, 308.
Hard v. Brown (18 Vt. 87), 114.
Hardee v. State (31 Tex. Crim. Rep.
389), 53.
Hardeubrook's Case (8 Abb. Pr.,
N. Y., 416), 286.
Hardesty v. Com. (88 Ky. 587), 283.
Harding v. Bank (81 Iowa, 499), 129.
Harding v. Butler (156 Mass. 34), 69.
Hardy v. Cbeny (43 Vt. 417), 73a.
Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank (51 Md.
596), 308.
Hardy v. Merrill (56 N. H. 237), 194,
197.
Hardy v. Summers (10 Gill & J.,
Md., 316), 304.
Hare v. Mahoney (60 Hun, 576),, 841.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxxv
Heferences are to sections.
Hargrave v. Hargrave (3 C. & K.
701), 53.
Hargrove v. Adcock (111 N. C. 166),
21.
Harlan v. Howard (79 Ky. 373), 108.
Harland v. Lilienthal (53 N. Y. 438),
189.
Harnickell v. Copper Mining Co. (5
N. Y, S. 113; 52 Hun, 610), 334.
Harpending v. Church (16 Pet. 455),
243.
Harper v. Burrow (6 Ired. 30), 123.
Harper v. Lexington R. Co. (3 Dana,
Ky., 327), 344.
Harper v. Morse (114 Mo. 317; 21
S. W. Rep. 517), 11.
Harper v. Perry (38 Iowa, 63), 208.
Harrell v. Culpepper (47 Ga. 635), 70.
Harrell v. Zimpleman (66 Tex. 293),
216.
Harriman v. Sampson (33 111. App.
161), 168.
Harriman v. Stowe (57 Mo. 93), 57.
Harrington v. Chambers (3 Utah, 94),
69.
Harrington v. Fish (10 Mich. 415),
136.
Harrington v. Hamburg (Iowa, 1892,
52 N. W. Rep. 301), 307.
Harrington v. Harrington (154 Mass.
517), 369.
Harrington v. Samples (36 Minn.
200), 315.
Harrington v. State (31 Tex. Crim.
Rep. 577), 283.
Harrington v. State (86 Ala. 236),
323.
Harrington v. Worcester, etc. Co.
(157 Mass. 579; 33 N. E. Rep.
955), 176, 343.
Harris v. Barnhart (97 Cal. 546; 33
Pac. Rep. 589), 153.
Harris v. Burton (4 Harr., Del., 66),
135.
Harris v. Clinton (31 N. W. Rep. 435 ;
64 Mich. 447), 198.
Harris v. Dinkins (4 Desaus., S. C,
60), 221.
Harris v. Dougherty (74 Tex. 1; 11
S. W, Rep. 921), 157.
Harris v. Harris (23 Gratt. 737), 208.
Harris v. Herman (78 Mo. 633), 238.
Harris v. Holmes (30 Vt. 353), 7.
Harris v. Hoskins (3 Tex. Civ. App.
486; 32 S. W. Rep. 251), 106.
Harris y. Lester (80 111. 311), 355.
Harris v. McArthur (90Ga. 216; 15
S. E. Rep. 758), 371.
Harris v. Nation (79 Tex. 409), 363.
Harris v. Oakey (130 N. Y. 1), 115.
Harris v. Railroad Co. (36 N. Y.
Sup. Ct. 373), 199.
Harris v. Railroad (78 Ga. 535), 50.
Harris v. Schuttler (Tex., 1894, 24
S. W. Rep. 989), 199.
Harris v. So. Mfg. Co. (8 R. I. 133),
77.
Harris v. State (6 Tex. App. 97), 93.
Harris v. Story (2 E. D. Smith), 234.
Harris v. Wilson (7 Wend. 57), 350.
Harris, Ex parte (4 Utah, 5), 333.
Harrisburg Car. Mfg. Co. v. Sloan
(120 Ind. 156; 21 N. E. Rep.
1088), 173.'
Harrison v. Bank (17 Wis. 310), 211.
Harrison v. Bishop (131 Ind. 161),'
348, 353.
Harrison v. Blades (3 Campb. 458),
123.
Harrison v. Charlton (42 Iowa, 573),
120.
Harrison v. Com. (79 Va. 374), 10.
Harrison v. Harrison (4 Moore P. C.
96), 203.
Harrison v. Kiser (79 Ga. 588; 4 S.
E. Rep. 330), 236.
Harrison v. Rowan (3 Wash. C. C.
580), 150.
Harrison v. Simmons (55 Ala. 510),
136.
Harrison v. State (79 Ala. 39), 52.
Harrison's Appeal (100 Pa. St. 458),
222.
Harrow v. Brown (76 Iowa, 179), 309.
Hart V. Bait. etc. Co. (6 W. Va.
336), 1.
Ixxxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferenoes are to sections.
Hart V. Hudson R. B. Co, (84 N. Y.
56), 188.
Hart V. Kendall (83 Ala. 144), 58.
Hart V. State (17 S. W. Rep. 421,
Tex., 1891), 232.
Hart V. State (55 Ind. 599), 238.
Hart V. Teneyck (18 Johns. Ch. 63,
108), 226.
Hartford Bank v. Hart (3 Day,
Conn., 495), 67.
Harter v. Hopkins (88 Wis. 809),
18.
Hartley v. Brooks (6Whart. 189), 60.
Hartley v. Carloy (150 Pa. St. 23),
129, 250.
Hartley v. Cataract, etc. Co. (19 N.
Y.'s. 121; 64 Hun, 634), 837.
Hartley v. Fresh (6 Tex. 208), 137.
Hartley v. Mathews (96 Ala. 234; 11
S. Rep. 542), 76.
Hartman v. Camman (10 ,N. J. Eq.
128), 217.
Hartman v. Cin. etc. Co. (4 Ind.
App. 370; 30 N. E. Rep. 930),
873.
Hartman v. Evans (W. Ya., 1894, 18
S. E. Rep. 810), 9.
Hartman v. Keystone Ins. Co. (21
Pa. St. 466), 200.
Hartman v. Rogers (69 Cal. 643), 841.
Hartshorn v. Dawson (79 111. 108),
136.
Hartsock v. Mort (76 Md. 281), 18,
362.
Hartze v. Fibre Co. (44 Md. 648), 151.
Harvard v. Gare (15 Pick. 872), 56.
Harvey v. Chouteau (14 Mo. 587),
210.
Harvey v. Lumber Co. (39 Mo. App.
314), 209.
Harvey v. State (21 Tex. App. 178),
288,
Harvey v. ^Tebutt (1 J. & W. 197),
276.
Harvey v. Thornton (14 111. 217), 232,
333.
Harvey v. Tyler (3 Wall., U. S., 338),
233.
Harvey v. Walden (23 La. Ann. 163),
238.
Harvey v. West (87 Ga, 553), 84.
Hasbrouck v. Baker (10 Johns. 248),
38.
Haskell v. Henry (74 Me. 197), 308.
Haskins v. Warren (115 Mass. 514),
250.
Hassv. Marshall (Pa., 1888, 14 Atl.
Rep. 431), 185, 195.
Hastings v. L. I. Co. (138 N. Y. 473),
330.
Hastings v. Rider (99 Mass, 625), 197.
Hatch V. Blisset (3 Stra. 986), 287.
Hatch V. Douglas (48 Conn. 116), 217.
Hatch V. Elkins (64 N. Y. 489), 73.
Hatch V. Fuller (131 Mass. 574), 52.
Hatch V. Hatch (9 Mass. 307), 128.
Hatch V. Perignet (64 Barb. 189), 309. ,
Hatch V. Potter (3 Gilm., 111., 725),
80.
Hatcher v. Rochelaw (18 N. Y. 87),
129, 244.
Hatohett v. Conner (30 Tex. 104),
142.
Hathaway V. Haskill (9 Pick., Mass.,
42), 67.'
Hathaway v. Tinkham (148 Mass.
85), 366.
Hatt V. Nay (144 Mass. 186), 8.
Hatton V. Robinson (14 Pick. 432),
166.
Haugen v. C, M. & St. P.,Ry. Co.
(S. D., 1893, 53 N. W. Rep. 769),
11.
Haughton v. Maurer (55 Mich. -323),
73a.
Haven v. Brown (7 Me. 421), 73a.
Haven v. Foster (9 Pick. 130), 143.
Havens v. Sea Shore Railroad (47
N. J. Eq. 365; 20 Atl. Rep. 497),
107.
Haver v, Schuyhart (48 Mo. App.
20), 375.
Haverstick v. State (Ind., 1898, 32
N. E Rep. 785), 283.
Haviland v. Man. R. Co. (61 Hnn,
636; 131 N. Y. 630), 866.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxxvii
Beferences are to sections.
Hawes v. Humphrey (9 Pick. 357),
138.
Hawes v. Merchant (1 Curt. C. C.
144), 83.
Hawes v. N. E. Ins. Co. (3 Curt.
C. C. 239), 200.
Hawes v. State (88 Ala. 68), 169,
339.
Hawey v. Donelly (8 Paige, N. Y.,
415), 359.
Hawey v. Foster (64 Cal. 396), 150a.
Hawk V. Applegarth (37 Mo. App.
33), 73a.
Hawkins v. Church (23 Minn. 256),
83.
Hawkins v. Gardiner (3 Sm. & Gif.
441), 365.
Hawkins v. Garland (76 Va. 149),
233.
Hawkins v. Grimes (18 B. Mon., Ky.,
357, 364), 140.
Hawkins v. Harding (37 111. App.
564), 226.
Hawkins v. Lee (8 Lea, Tenn., 43),
209.
Hawkins v. Sanby (48 Minn. 69), 4.
Hawkins v. State (27 Tex. App. 273),
319.
Hawkins v. Thomas (3 Ind. App.
399), 339.
Hawks V. Baker (6 Greenl., Me., 73),
315.
Hawksworth v. Brammel (5 M. &
Cr. 381), 77.
Hawley y. Dawson (16 Greg. 344),
373. 1
Hawley V. Donnelly (8 Paige, N. Y.,
41.5), 357.
Haworth v. Norris (38 Fia. 763), 313.
Hawthorne v. State (61 Miss. 749),
103.
Hayden v. Ewing (1 B. Mon. 113),
222.
Hayden v. Grillo (43 Mo. App. 1),
"3O8.
Hayden v. Westcott (11 Conn. 139),
136.
Hayes v. Burkam (67 Ind. 359), 67.
Hayes v. Case (10 How. St. Tr. 312),
141.
Hayes v. Fine (91 Cal. 391), 254.
Hayes v. FoskoU (31 Me. 112), 332.
Hayes v. Jackson (37 Cent. L. J. 298),
268.
Hayes v. Seaver (7 Greenl. 337), 73.
Hayes v. White (66 Me. 305), 140.
Haynes v. Ledyard (33 Mich. 319),
339,
Haynes v. McRae (Ala., 1893, 11 S.
Rep. 370), 226.
Haynes v. Mosher (15 How. Pr, 316),
191.
Haynes v. Rowe (40 Me. 181), 363.
Haynes v. Thomas (7 Ind. 38), 139.
Hays V. Com. (Ky., 1890, 14 S. W.
Rep. 833), 103.
Hays V. Miller (70 N. Y. 113), 300.
Hays T. State (Tex., 1893, 30 S. W.
Rep. 361), 333.
Haywood v. Collins (60 111. 328), 332.
Haywood v. Thacher (19 N. Y. S.
882), 151.
Hazard v. Spencer (17 R. L 561; 23
Atl. Rep. 729), 247.
Hazzard v. Vickory (78 Ind. 64), 140.
Head v. Head (1 Sim. & Stu. 150),
234.
Head v. Thompson (77 Iowa, 263),
168.
tieaden v. Womack (88 N. C. 468), 71.
Headly v. Renner (130 Pa. St. 542),
233.
Heady t. Vevay Turnpike Co. (53
Ind. 117), 344.
Heald v. Thwing (45 Me. 396), 185,
197.
Healey, In re (53 Vt. 694), 385.
Healey t. Simpson (Mo., 1893, 20 S.
W. Rep. 881), 373.
Healey v. Terry (9 N. Y. S. 519), 349.
Healey v. Bauer (65 Hun, 631 ; 19
N. Y. S. 989), 58.
Heane v. Rogers (9 B. & C. 597), 83.
Heath v. Missouri R. Co. (83 Mo.
624), 150a.
Heath v. State (7 Tex. App. 464), 330.
Ixxxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Heath v. Voge (60 Pa. St. 108), 146.
Hecker v. Hopkins (16 Abb. Pr., N.
Y., 301), 249.
Heokman v. Green (Mo., 1893, 32 S.
W. Rep. 455), 174.
Heddles v. Chicago & N. W. E. Co.
(46 N. W. Rep. 115 ; 71 Wis. 288),
194, 350.
Hedger v. Ward (15 B. Mon., Ky.,
106), 106, 135.
Heermance v. Vernoy (6 Johns. 5),
303.
Hegard v. Insurance Co. (Colo., 1890,
11 Pac. Rep. 594), 239.
Hefron v. State (8 Fla. 73), 249, 254.
Heffron v. Gallupe (55 Me. 563), 176,
343.
Heidekoper v. Cotton (3 Watts, Pa. ,
56), 176.
Heilman v. Lazarus (90 N. Y. 672),
250.
Heldt V. State (20 Neb. 493: 30 N.
W. Rep. 636), 2.
Helfenstein's Estate (135 Pa. St. 293),
145.
Heller v. Petterson (3 N. Y. S. 257 ;
18 N. Y. State Rep. 928), 371.
Helm V. State (7 S. Rep. 487; 67
Miss. 563), 333.
Helmsley v. Loader (3 Campb. 450),
133.
Helton V. Alabama M. Ry. Co. (Ala,,
1893, 13 S. Rep. 376), 9.
Helwig V. Laschowitz (83 Mich. 619),
354.
Hemenway v. Kundsen (67 Hun,
648). 359.
Hemenway v. Smith (28 Vt. 701),
174.
Hemingway v. Garth (51 Ala. 580),
348.
Hemminger v. West. Ass'n (95 Mich.
355; 54 N. W. Rep. 949), 21, 339.
Hempstead v. Read (6 Conn. 480), 143.
Henderson v. Anderson (3 How., U.
a, 73), 811.
Henderson v. Bank (1 Ala. 855),
139a.
Henderson v. Benar (Ky., 1890, 11
S. W. Rep. 809), 333.
Henderson v. Evans (14 Barb., N. Y.,
15), 150a.
Henderson v. Miller (36 111. App.
263), 11.
Hendrickson v. People (10 N. Y. 13),
93.
Hendrickson, Ex parte (6 Utah, 8; 21
Pac. Rep. 396), 166.
Heneke v. Floring (114 111. 554), 246.
Henessy v. Murdock (137 N. Y. 317),
349.
Henley y. Com. (1 Bush, Ky., 11),
23.
Henly v. State (29 Ark. 17), 843.
Hennell v. Lyon (1 B. & A. 182), 147.
Henry v. Allen (83 Tex. 35), 159.
Henry v. Bishop (3 Wend. 575), 138.
Henry v. Bradshaw (30 Iowa, 355),
336.
Henry v. Deetrioh (7 N. Y. S. 505),
24.
Henry v. Diviney (101 Mo. 378), 130.
Henry v. Leigh (3 Camp. 499, 503),
137.
Henry v. Sanson (3 Tex. Civ. App.
150; 21 S. W. Rep. 69), 153.
Henry v. Tilton (19 Vt. 447), 150a.
Henry v. Wead (4 Law Bull., N. Y.,
10), 359.
Henry v. Whitaker (82 Tex. 5), 30.
Henry v. Willard (73 N. C. 35), 68.
Henry Buggy Co. v. Pratt (78 Iowa,
485; 35 N. W. Rep. 587), 348.
Hensel v. Chicago, etc. Co. (37 Minn.
87), 230.
Henshaw v. Foster (9 Pick. 318), 125.
Henthorn v. Boe (1 Blatch. 157), 243.
Herbert v. Berrier (81 lud. 1), 231.
Herbert v. Duffur (Oreg., 1893, 32
Pac. Rep. 502), 366.
Herbert v. Keck (35 Neb. 503), 380.
Herbst v. Vacuum Oil Co. (68 Hun,
222), 371.
Herd v. Herd (71 Iowa, 497), 283.
Hermes v. Chicago, etc, Co. (80 Wis.
590), 56.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxxix
Beferences are to sections.
Hernandez v. State (33 S. Rep. 972),
18,
Herndon v. Reed (83 Tex. 647), 135.
Herrick v. MaUn(33 Wend. 388), 129.
Herrick v. Swomley (56 Md. 439)^
124, 139.
Herring v. Goodson (43 Miss. 393),
334.
Herrington v. Winn (14 N. Y. S.
613; GO Hun, 335), 178, 308.
Herster v. Herster (123 Pa. St. 339),
51.
Hess' Appeal (36 W. N. C. 121), 129.
Hess V. Lake Shore & M. Co. (7 Pa.
Co. Ct. Rep. 565), 302.
Hess V. LoWry (122 Ind. 283), 189,
340.
Hess V. Morgan (8 Johns., N. Y., 84),
284.
Hester V. Com. (85 Pa. St. 139), 320.
Hestres v. Brennan (50 Cal. 217),
379.
Heught V. Proper (4 Wash. C. C. 661),
306.
Heuston v. Simpson (17 N. E. Rep.
261: 115 Ind. 162), 178.
Hewelette v, George (68 Miss. 703),
363.
Hewett V. Eisenbart (36 Neb. 794 ; 55
N. W. Rep. 352), 52, 56.
Hewitt V. Carey (150 Mass. 445), 350.
Hewitt V. Morgan (Iowa, 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 478), 136.
Hewlett V. Cock (7 Wend. 871, 374),
105, 106.
Hewthorn v. Doe (1 Blackf., Ind.,
159), 289.
Heyward v. Knapp (22 Minn, 5),
344.
Hey wood v. Reed (4 Gray, Mass.,
574), 70.
Hickman v. Jones (9 Wall., U. S.,
201-3), 11.
Hickman v. Quinn (6 Yerg., Tenn.,
96), 223.
Hickman v. State (38 Tex. 191), 197.
Hicks V. Lovell (64 Cal. 14), 124.
Hicks V. Sharp (89 Ga. 311), 51, 833.
Hicks V. State (Ala., 1893, 13 S. Rep.
875), 346.
Hier v. Grant (47 N. Y. 378), 309.
Higbee v. Dresser (103 Mass. 533),
174.
Higbie v. Guardian L. I. Co. (53
N. Y. 603), 188, 194.
Higginbotham v. Campbell (85 Ga.
638), 11.
Higgins V. Dellinger (33 Mo. 397), 19
Higgins V. Dewey (107 Mass. 494),
200.
Higham v. Ridgeway (10 East, 109),
58.
Higham v. Vanosdol (101 Ind. 160),
70.
Highton V. Dessau (19 N. Y. S. 395),
217.
Higraan v. Hood (3 Ind. App. 456),
18.
Hilburn v. Harris (Tex., 1893, 21 S.
W. Rep. 572), 376.
Hildebrand v. Fogle (20 Ohio, 147),
331.
Hildreth v. Aldrich (15 R. I. 63),
348.
Hildreth v. Martin (3 Allen, Mass. ,
371), 79.
Hiles V. La Flesh (59 Wis. 465), 186.
Hill T. Blake (97 N. Y. 216), 214.-
Hill V. Bub (35 Neb. 524), 130.
Hill V. Com. (88 Va. 633 ; 14 S. E.
Rep. 330), 385.
Hill V. Crary (7 Ark. 536), 305.
Hill V. Durand (58. Wis. 160), 211.
Hill V. Froehlick (14 N. Y. S. 610;
60 Hun, 580), 347.
Hill V. Hilert (19 W. R. 250), 53.
Hill V. Lafayette (2 Md. 476), 200.
Hill V. Miller (76 N. Y. 83), 200. ■
Hill V. Packard (5 Wend. 887), 146.
Hill V. Perry (82 Ind. 128), 249.
Hill V. Portland, etc. Co. (55 Me.
438), 198.
Hill V. Roderick (4 W. &S., Pa,, 231),
67.
Hill V. State (91 Tenn. 531 ; 19 S. W.
Rep. 674), 350.
xc
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferenoes ate to sections.
Hill V. State (43 111. 177), 237.
Hill V. State (9 Yerg., Tenn., 357),
218.
Hill V. State (64 Miss. 431), 93.
Hill V. Wand (47 Kan. 240), 83, 83.
Hill V. Whidden (158 Mass. 267 ; 33
N. E. Rep. 536), 208.
Hillesum v. City of New York (4 N.
Y. S. 506), 336.
Hillman v. Schwenk (68 Mich. 293),
350.
Hills V. Barnes (11 N. H. 395), 129.
Hills V. Case (3 Gratt. 594), 103, 234.
Hills V. Ludwig (34 N. E. Rep. 596;
46 Ohio St. 513), 66.
Hilton V. Bender (69 N. Y. 75), 218.
Hilton V. Railroad Co. (Ala., 1893,
13 S. Rep. 276), 7, 13.
Hilts V. Colvin (14 Johns. 183), 333.
Himes v. Krehl (154 Pa. St. 190), 343.
Himrod v. Bolton (44 111. App. 516),
140.
Hine v. Com. (Ky,, 13 S. W. Rep.
445), 103.
Hine v. Hine (39 Barb. 507), 315.
Ilinzie v. Moody (1 Te3{. Civ. App.
36), 358.
Hirschfeld v. Williamson (18 Kev.
66), 71.
Hirth V. Graham (Ohio, 1893, 33 N.
E. Rep. 90), 254.
Hitchcock V. Davis (87 Mich. 639),
350.
Hitchcock V. Moore (70 Mich. 113),
168, 3546.
Hitchcock V. Thayer (33 Neb, 477 ;
49 N. W. Rep. 374), 11.
Hitcliings v. St. Louis Transp. Co.
(68 Hun, 33), 73a.
Hitchins v. Eardley (L. R. 2 P. & M.
248), 53.
Hitchins v. Frostburg (68 Md. 100),
343. >
Hitt V. Jenks (133 U. S. 301), 136.
Hix V. Hix (25 W. Va. 481), 238.
Hix V. Whittemore (4 Met. 545), 231.
Hoare v. Silverlock (13 Jur. 695), 237.
Hobart v. Hobart (63 N. Y. 80), 309.
Hobart v. Jones (5 Wash. St. 385),
358.
Hobbrook v. Turrell (9 Pick. 105),
265.
Hobbs V. State (133 Ind. 404; 33 N. B.
Rep. 1019), 350.
Hobby V. Dana (17 Barb. Ill), 200.
Hodge V. State (26 Fla. 11 ; 7 S. Rep.
593), 319, 834.
Hodge V. State (Ala., 1893, 10 S. Rep.
164), 6.
Hodge V. Thompson (9 Ala. 131), 70.
Hodges V. Carvill (44 N. J. L. 456),
308.
Hodges V. Hodges (9 Mass. 330), 233.
Hodges V. Hodges (106 N. C. 374),
53, 113.
Hodges V. Nash (43 111. App. 638),
282.
Hodges V. Percival (152 111. 53; 33
N. E. Rep. 423), 8.
Hodges V. St. Louis, etc. Co. (71 Mo.
50), 12.
Hoefling v. Harableton (84 Tex. 617;
19 S. W. Rep. 689), 38.
HofE V. State (Ga., 1893, 16 S. E. Rep.
99), 11.
Hoffman v. Fitchburg R. Co. (67
Hun, 581), 386.
Hoffman v. Newell (20 N. Y. S. 432),
159.
Hoffman v. State (38 Tex. App. 174).
346.
Hofman V. Smith (1 Caines, 157), 16K
Hogaboom v. Herrick (4 Vt. 131), 77.
Hogan V. Corinth (19 Fla. 84), 107.
Hogan V. Shuart (11 Mont. 498), 36fi.
Hogan V. State (36 Wis. 296), 249.
Hogans v. Caruth (18 Fla. 587), ISn.
Hoge V. Fisher (1 Pet. C. C. 163),
250.
Hoge V. Hoge (1 Watts, 168, 213),
233.
Hogel V. Lindell (10 Mo. 483), 223.
Hogg V. Orgill (34 Pa. St. 344), 69.
Hoghten v. Hoghten (15 Beav. 331), '
75.
Hogle V. Lowe (12 Nev. 388), 368.
TABLE or CASES.
xoi
Eefereuoes are to sections.
Hogue V. Willianison (Tex., 1893, 23
S. W. Rep. 762), 247.
Hoitt V. Moulton (21 N. H. 586),
139.
Holbrook V. Burt (33 Pick., Mass.,
546), 208.
Holbrook v. Gay (6 Gush. 215), 60.
Holbrook v. Jackson (7 Gush. 136),
37.
Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc Co.
(57 N. Y. 634), 134.
Holbrook v. Nichol (36 111. 161), 136.
Holcoiub V. Gornish (8 Gonn. 375),
147.
Holcomb V. Holcomb (28 Conn. 177),
317.
Holcomb V. Holcomb (95 N. Y. 325),
309.
Holcomb V. Mooney (13 Oreg. 513),
217.
Holcomb V. State (28 Ga. 66), 33.
Holdane V. Colesprins; (31 N. Y.,474),
84.
Hoklridge V. Lee (S. D., 1893, 53 N.
W. Rop. 365), 341.
Holdridge v. Marsh (30 Mo. App.
353), 148.
Holker v. Parker (7 Cranch, 436), 74.
Holland v. Farthing (Tex., 1893, 21
S. W. Rep. 67), 246,
Holland v. Gtate (31 Tex. Cr. Rep.
345), 383.
Hollander v. Hull (58 Hun, 604), 38.5.
Hollen V. Davis (59 Iowa, 444), 331.
Hollenbaok v. Fleming (6 Hill, 304),
138.
HoUey v. HoUey (12 Am. Deo. 343),
343.
HoUiday v. Jackson (30 Mo. App.
263), 69.
HoUiday v. McKinnie (23 Fla. 153),
309.
HoUings worth v. Holbrook (45 N.
W. Rep. 561 ; 80 Iowa, 151), 128.
HoUingsworth v. State (53 Ark. 387),
350.
HoUingsworth v. State (4 S. E. Rep.
560; 79 Ga. 605), 342.
o
HoUingsworth v. Walker (13 S. Rep.
6), 220.
Hollis V. Harris (Ala., 1893, 10 8.
Rep. 377), 138.
Hollister v. Cordero (76 Cal. 649),
333.
Hollister v. Young (41 Vt. 5561, 308.
Holloway v. Frick (Pa., 1893, 24Atl.
Rep. 201), 314.
Holloway v. Railroad Co. (23 Tex.
465), 243.
Holraan v. Kimball (23 Vt. 555), 169.
Holmes v. Anderson (59 Tex. 481),
309.
Hclmes v. Broughton (10 Weml., N.
Y., 75), 330.
Holmes v. Budd (11 Iowa, 186), 68.
Holmes v. Crowell (73 N. C. 613),
84.
Holmes v. Goldsmith (147 TJ. S. 150),
56, 139a, 140, 319.
Holmes v. Gratz (50 Fed. Rep. 869),
159.
Hoist V. State (23 Tex. App. 1). 319.
Holt V. Miers (9 G. & P. 191), 127.
Holt V. Moore (37 Ark. 148). 128.
Holt V. Pie (120 Pa. St. 435), 84.
Holt V. Spokane R. Co. (Idaho, 1894,
35 Pac. Rep. 39), 73a.
Holton V. Carter (90 Ga. 399; 15 S.
E, Rep. 810). 71.
Holyoke, etc. Co. v. Ambden (55
Fed. Rep. 593), 385.
Homan v. State (23 Tex. 313), 877.
Home V. Bentinck (3 Brod. & Bing.
130), 175.
Home V. McKenzie (6 C. & F. 628),
339.
Home Ins. Co. v. Bethel (42 111. App,
475), 24.
Home Ins. Co. v. B. W. Go. (93 U. S
548), 75.
Home Ins. Co. v. Maple (Ind., 1890,
37 N. E. Rep. 633), 220.
Home Ins. Co. v. Myers (03 111. 271),
304.
Home Ins. Co. v. Weide (11 Wall,,
U. S., 438;, 199.
xou
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
Home Lumber Co. v. Hartinan (45
Mo. App. 617), 10.
Homer v. Cilley (14 N. H. 85), 108. '
Homer v. Wallis (11 Mass. 3(j(»), 138.
Homeyer v. N. J. S. & W. Co. (66
Hun, 626), 127.
Hominedieu v. Railroad Co. (120 Ind.
435). 366.
Hon V. Hon (70 Ind. 135), S65.
Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking
Co. V. Cooper (114 N. Y. 388).
371.
Hood V. Pioneer M, & M. Co. (95
Ala. 461; 11 S. Bep. 10), 31.
Hood V. Tyner (3 Ind. App. 51), 76.
Hook V. Kenyon (55 Hun, 598), 199.
Hook V. Stovell (26 Ga. 704), 193.
Hooker v. Asford (33 Mich. 45-^),
233.
Hoope V. State (81 Ala. 51), P9.
Hooper V. Taylor (39 -Me. 324), 79.
Hooper v. W. W. Co. (37 Hun, 568),
107.
Hoover v. Hoover (129 Pa. St. 201),
213, 248.
Hope V. Sawyer (14 111. 254), 135.
Hopkins v. Albertson (3 Bay, 484),
138.
Hopkins v. Banks (7 Cow. 650), 69.
Hopkins v. Bowers (108 N. C. 298),
308, 374.
Hopkins v. Bowers (111 N. C. 175),
373.
Hopkins v. Coburn (1 Wend., N. Y.,
292), 286.
Hopkins v. Com. (50 Pa. St. 9), 9.
Hopkins v. De Graflfenreid (3 Bay,
187), 138.
Hopkins v. McCrillis (158 Mass. 97 ;
33 N. E. Rep. !036), 84.
Hopkins v. Megguire (35 Me. 78),
139.
Hopper V. Ashley (15 Ala. 457), 139.
Hopps v. People (31 III. 385), 10.
Hopt V. People (7 S. Ct. 614; 130
U. S. 431), 6.
Horbach v. State (43 Tex. 342), 103.
Horn V. Cole (51 N. H. 287), 83, 84.
Horn V. Haverhill (113 Mass. 344),
360.
Horn V. State (Ala., 1893, 13 S. Rep.
329), 333.
Horn V. State (Tex., 1893, 13 S. Rep.
329), 11,249.
Horn V. State (1 Kan. 42), 6.
Home V. Bank (108 N. C. 109), 84.
Home V. Williams (23 Ind. 37), 124.
Horner v. StiUwell (35 N. J. L. .307),
205.
Hornish v. People (143 111. 620; 32
N. E. Rep. 677), 331.
Hornsby v. State (10 S. Rep. 533 ; 94
Ala- 50), 39, 89, 234.
Plosmer v. McDonald (Ark., 1893, 19
S. W. Rep. 963), 206.
Hotchkiss V. Gen. Ins. Co. (5 Hun,
N. Y., 101), 350.
Hotchkiss V. Hunt (56 Me. 252),
150a.
Hotchkiss V. Lyon (3 Blackf. 232),
73.
Hough V. Barton (20 Vt. 455), 73.
Houghton V. Jones (1 Wall., U. S.,
702), 134.
Houlton V. Manteuffel (51 Minn. 185;
53 N. W. Rep. 541), 53.
Housch V. People (66 111. 178), 333.
Hou.se V. Beak (43 111. App. 615; 141
111. 290), 79.
House V. Greensburg (93 Ind. 533),
343.
House V. Metcalf (37 Conn. 633), 8,
24.
House V. Montgomery (19 Mo. App.
170;, 336.
Houston V. Jordan (83 Tex. 352),
129.
Hovey v. Elliot (21 N. Y. S. 1083),
159.
Howard v. American, etc., Soc. (49
Me. 288), 221.
Howard v. Brewer (37 Ohio St. 402),
168.
Howard v. Lock (Ky., 1893, 22 S.
W. Rep. 332), 129.
Howard v. Moot (64 N. Y. 202), 238.
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
XCIil
Howard v. Patrick (38 Mich. 795),
121.
Howard v. Patrick (43 Mich. 121),
139a.
Howard v. Skillwell (139 U. S. 199),
362.
Howard v. State (33 Tex. App. 855),
103.
Howard v. State (50 Ind. 193), 349.
Howard v. Thompson (13 Ohio St
301), 205.
Howard v. Walker (90 Tenn. 453; 21
S. W. Eep. 897), 316.
Howard v. Zimpelman (Tex., 1890,
14 S. W. Rep. 59), 309.
Howe V. Howard (158 Mass. 278; 33
N. E. Rep. 528), 8.
Howe V. Schweniberg (4 Misc. Rep.
73), 341.
Howell V. Bowman (Ala., 1893, 10
8. Rep. 640), 339.
Howell V. Dilts (Ind., 1892, 30 N. E.
Rep. 313;, 386.
Howell V. Howell (47 Ga. 493), 70.
Howell V. Moores (127 111. 86), 208.
Howell Lumber Co. v. Campbell
(Neb., 1894, 57 N. W. Rep. 383),
851.
Howes V. Rucker (94 Ala. 166), 151.
Howes V. State (88 Ala. 37), 141.
Howie V. Edward (Ala., 1893, 11 S.
Rep. 748),
Howser v. Com. (51 Pa. St. 338),
346,
Hoxey v. Green (37 How. Pr. 97),
253.
Hoxsie V. Empire Lumber Co. (41
Minn. 548J, 199.
Hoy V. Morris '(13 Gray, 519), 168.
Hoyt V. Hannekin (14 How. 346),
361.
Hoyt V. Hoyt (113 N. Y. 513), 171,
178.
Hoyt V. Newbold (45 N. J. L, 319),
333.
Hoyt V. People (140 111. 588), 316.
Hroneck v. People (134 111. 139; 24
N. E, Rep. 861), 316.
Hubbard v. Alexander (3 Ch. D. 738),
233.
Hubbard v. Greeley (84 Me. 340), 213.
Hubbard v. Hubbard (7 Oreg. 42),
330.
Hubbard v. Johnson (77 Me. 139),
309.
Hubbard v. Marshall (50 Wis. 333),
305.
Hubbell V. Hubbell (23 Ohio St. 208),
308.
Huber v. Beck (Ind., 1893, 33 N. B.
Rep. 985), 199.
Huckabee v. Abbott (87 Ala. 409),
309.
Huckabee v. Shepherd (75 Ala. 343),
318.
Hudson V. Applegate (Iowa, 1893, 54
N. W. Rep. 463), 133.'
Hudson V. Chicago Ry. Co. (59 Iowa,
581). 8.
Hudson V. Daily (13 Ala. 733), 148.
Hudson V. Hudson (90 • Ga. 581 ; 16
S. E. Rep. 349), 80, 334.
Hudson V. Puett (86 Ga. 341), 138.
Hudson V. Roos (76 Mich. 180), 131,
344.
Hudson V. State (28 Tex. App. 333),
350.
Hudson V. White (17 R. I. 519), 213,
346.
Hudson V. Yost (13 S. E. Eep. 836),
158. «
Hudspeth v. Mears (Ga., 1893, 17 S.
E. Rep. 837), 843.
Hudspeth y. State (55 Ark. 323), 378.
Hueston v. Hueston (8 Ohio St. 488),
67.
Huet V. Leraesurier (1 Cox, Eq. 375),
144.
Huetteman v. Viesselmann (48 Mo.
App. 583), 75.
Huff V. Bennett (4 Sandf., N. Y.,
120), 124, 139.
Huff V. Latimer (33 S. C. 355; 11 S.
E. Rep. 758), 343.
Huff V. Nims (11 Neb. 363), 139a.
Hughbanks, In re (44 Kan. 105), 879.
XCIT
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Hughes V. Boone (103 N. a 43), 173.
Hughes V. Budd (8 Dowl. 315), 137.
Hughes V. Detroit (31 N. W. Rep.
603; 63 Mich. 10), 817.
Hughes V. Ward (38 Kan. 453), 341,
367.
Hughes V. Wilkinson (37 Miss. 483),
135.
Hughes V. Wilkinson (35 Ala. 453),
320.
Hughey v. Eichelberger (11 S. C. 36),
309.
Hulbsrt V. Carver (37 Barb. 63), 337.
Hull V, Blake (13 Mass. 155), 153.
Uumason v. Lobe (76 Tex. 513), 151.
Humbard v. State (31 Tex. App. 200),
23.
Humes v. O'Brien (74 Ala. 64), 63.
Humphrey V, Cande (3 Cow., N. Y.,
509), 357.
Humphrey v. Gumming (5 Wend.,
N. Y., 90), 287.
Humphreys v. Burnside (4 Bush,
215), 238.
Humphreys v. GuiUow (13 N. H.
385), 129.
Humphreys v. Railroad Co. (18 S. E.
Rep. 985), 312.
Humphreys v. Railroad Co. (88 Va.
431), 313.
Humphreys v. State (78 Wis. 569 ;
47 N. W. Rep. 836), 343, 376.
Humphries v. Johnson (30 Ind. 190),
190.
Hunnicut v. Peyton (103 U. S. 363),
66.
Hunnicutt v. Railroad Co. (11 S. E.
Rep. 580; 85 Ga. 195), 370.
Hunscora v. Hunscom(15 Mass. 184),
316.
Hunsinger v. Hofner (110 Ind. 390),
339.
Hunt V. Adams (6 Mass. 519), 128.
Hunt V. Adams (7 Mass. 518), 188.
Hunt V. Blackburn (9 S. Ct. 135 ; 138
U. S. 464), 171.
Hunt V. Cassidy (7 U. S. App. 434),
249.
Hunt T. Lowell Gas Co. (8 Allen,
Mass., 170), 188.
Hunt V. Lyle (8 Yorg. 142), 148.
Hunt V. Order of Chosen Friends (64
Mich. 671), 58, 144.
Hunt V. Strew (33 Mich. 85), 71.
Hunt's Case (4 Dall. 38T), 386.
Hunt, In re (L. R. 3 P. & D. 350),
233.
Hunter v. Bilyeu (30 111. 338), 233.
Hunter v. Burlington, etc. Co. (76
Iowa, 490), 133.
Hunter v. Lanius (83 Tex. 677), 308.
Hunter v. New York, O. & W. R. R.
Co. (116 N. Y. 623), 237, 241.
Hunter v. Riley (36 Pa. St. 509), 355.
Hunter t. State (29 Fla. 486), 6.
Hunter v. Whitehead (43 Mo. 534),
267.
Hunting v. Finch (3 Ohio, 445), 129.
Huntington v. Attrill (1 18 N. Y. 365),
7, 8.
Huntington v. Atwell (146 U. S.
657), 159.
Huntington v. Charlotte (15 Vt. 46),
333.
Huntington v. Conkey (33 Barb., N.
Y., 218), 249, 253.
Huntington v. Schultz (Harp., S. C,
453), 286.
Huntley v. Huet (23 Atl. Rep. 34 ; 59
Conn. 103), 151.
Huntley v. Huntley (114 U. S. 894),
367.
Huntsville v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co.
(Ala., 1893, 12 S. Rep. 395), 186,
341.
Hurd V. Bovee (134 N. Y. 596; 31 N.
E. Rep. 634), 217.
Hurlbut V. Hurlbut (128 N. Y. 420),
11, 170.
Hurlbut V. Hurlbut (63 Vt. 667), 368.
Hurley v. Lookett (73 Tex. 363), 66,
71.
Hurley v. Sullivan (187 Mass. 86),
249.
Hurst v., Beaver (50 Mich. 612), 323.
Hurst v. Jones (1 Wall. Jr. 373)j 53.
TABLE OF OASES.
xcv
Keferenoes are to sections. '
Hurst, Ex parte (1 Wash. C. C. 186),
2S7.
Hurt V. Evans (49 Tex. 311), 300.
Hurt V. McCartney (18 111. 129),
136.
Hussey v. Kirkwood (95 N. C. 63),
139a.
Husaey v. State (87 Ala. 131), 166.
Hussman v. Wilkie (50 Cal. 250),
207.
Hust V. Mellinger (73 Tex. 189), 150.
Huston V. Ticknor (99 Pa. St. 238),
138.
Hatchings v. Castle (48 Cal. 152), 70.
Hutchings v. Corgan (59 111. 70), 124.
Hutchins v. Adams (3 Greenl. 174),
30.
Hutchins v. Com'rs (16 Minn. 13),
loOa.
Hutchins v. Hutchins (98 N. Y. 56),
U.
Hutchinson v. Ainsworth (63 Cal.
386), 136.
Hutchinson v. Boltz (35 W. Va.
754), 5.
Hutchison v. Cleary (N. D., 1893, 55
N. W. Rep, 729), 309.
Hutchison v. State (19 Neb. 363),
345.
Hutton V. Weber (17 N. Y. S. 463),
136.
Hutzler v. Hubbard (36 Tex. 537),
68.
Huxley v. Harrold (62 Mo. 616), 136.
Hyatt V. Pugsley (23 Barb., N. Y.,
285), 231.
Hyburn v. State (26 Tex. App. 668),
283.
Hyde v. Shank (98 Mich. 535), 847.
Hyde v. Woolfolk (1 Iowa, 159), 140,
166, 185.
Hyden v. State (31 Tex. Crim. Rep.
401), 283, 350.
Hydrick v. Burke (30 Ark. 124), 220.
Hynes v. McDermott (83 N. Y, 41),
139.
H V. P (L. R, 3 P. & D.
126), 203.
I.
lasigi V. Rosenstein (65 Hun, 591), 310.
Idaho, etc. Co. v. Bradbury (133 U.
S. 509), 7.
Idaho Ford Co, v. Firemen's Ins. Co.
(Utah, 1893, 29 Pac. Rep. 826),
73a.
111. Cent. R. R. Co. v. People (111..
1893, 33 N. E. Rep. 173). 186.
111. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Ruffin (Miss.,
1888, 3 S. Rep. 578), 50.
111. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Sutton (43-
Mich. 438), 53, 193.
Imrie v. Castrigue (8 C. B., N. S.,
406). 158.
Ince V. Beekman (16 La. Ann. 353),
333.
Independence v. Trowville (15 Kan.
70), 143a.
Indiana, etc. Co. v. Cook (102 Ind.
113), 253.
Indianapolis v. Scott (73 Ind. 196),
343.
Indianapolis Cabinet Co. v. Herr-
man (Ind., 1898, 34 N. E. Rep.
579), 330.
Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Stout (53
Ind. 543), 123.
Indianapolis Ry. v. Boetcher (131
Ind. 82;28N. E. Rep. 551), 8.
Ingalls V. State (48 Wis. 647), 334.
Ingersoll v. Stiger (46 N. J. Eq. 511),
304.
Ingle V. Jones (43 Iowa, 286), 346.
Ingraham v. Hutchison (3 Conn.
584), 229.
Ingram v. State (27 Ala. 17), 244.
Insurance Co. v. Forchheimer (88
Ala. 541), 242.
Insurance Co. v. Hazen (110 Pa. St.
537), 10.
Insurance Co. v. Lane (46 N. J. Eq.
316), 50.
Insurance Co. v. Morey (96 U. S.
544), 83.
Insurance Co. v. Mosley (8 Wall., U.
S., 897), 52, 57.
XCVl
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferences are to sections.
Insurance Co, v. Sbeppard (85 Ga.
751), 57.
Insurance Co. v. Slowitch (55 N. Y.
Super. Ct. 453), 334.
Insurance Co. v. Throop (33 Mich.
146), 217.
Insurance Co. v. Weide (11 Wall.,
U. S., 441), 235.
International Co. v. Eagsdale (67
Tex. 27), 76.
International, etc. Co. v. Kuehn
(Tex., 1893, 31 S. W. Rep. 58),
50, 58.
International, etc. Co. v. Underwood
(64 Tex. 464), 203.
International E. R. Co. v. Dyer (76
Tex. 156), 341.
Investment Co. v. Elridge (3 Pa.
Dis. Ct. Rep. 394), 140.
Irby V. State (28 Tex. App. 103), 101.
Irish V. Smith (8 S. & R. 573), 186.
Irvin V. Bail (80 Tex. 352), 363.
Irvin V. Howard (37 Ga. 33), 358.
Irving V. Campbell (56 N. Y. Super.
Ct. 234), 130.
Irving V. Edrington (41 La. Ann.
671), 356.
Irwin V. Phillips (5 Cal. 140), 238.
Irwin V. West (81 Pa. St. 157), 67.
Isaacson v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co.
(94 N. Y. 378), 242.'
Isenhour v. Isenhour (64 N. C. 640),
309.
Isley v. Boon (109 N. C. 555), 30.
Ives V. Kimball (1 Mich. 308), 136.
Ives V. Quinn (27 N. Y. S. 251), 199.
Ives V. Williams (50 Mich. 100), 205.
Ivory V. Town of Deer Park (116 N.
Y. 476), 186.
J.
Jaccard v. Anderson (87 Mo. 91),
123.
Jackson v. Allen (130 Mass. 64), 83.
Jackson v. Beneham (15 Johns., N.
Y., 326), 53.
Jackson v. Birton (11 Johns. 64), 83.
Jackson v, Boncham (15 Johns. 236),
143, 232.
Jackson v. Cairns (20 Johns., N. Y.,
300), 136.
Jackson v. Christman (4 Wend., N.
Y., 277), 107.
Jackson v. Clopton (66 Ala. 29), 75.
Jackson v. Com. (19 Gratt. 656), 101.
Jackson v. Cooly (8 Johns. 138, 131),
52, 53.
Jackson v. Crilly (16 Colo. 103), 123.
Jackson v. Crissey (3 Wend., N. Y.,
351), 123.
Jackson v. Fairbanks (2 H. Bl. 340),
69.
Jackson v. French (3 Wend. 387),
168.
Jackson v. Gager (5 Cow., N. Y.,
3S3), 314.
Jackson v. Gardner (8 Johns. 404),
265.
Jackson v. Jackson (47 Ga. 99), 38.
Jackson v. Jones (74 Tex. 104), 308.
Jackson v. LaGrange (19 Johns. 336),
138.
Jackson v. Lamb (7 Cow., N. Y.,
431), 108.
Jackson v. Laroway (3 Johns. Cas.
283), 106, 108.
Jackson v, Lawson (15 Johns. 544),
123.
Jackson v. Litch (63 Pa. St. 451),
341.
Jackson v. Lodge (86 Cal. 28), 223.
Jackson v. Luquere (5 Cow, 221),
105, 108, 138.
Jackson v. Marford (7 Wend., N. Y.,
62), 235.
Jackson v. McVey (18 Johns. 330),
173.
Jackson v. Nelson (6 Cow. 348), 303.
Jackson v. Osborn (3 Wend. 555),
129.
Jackson v. Parker (18 Conn. 853),
811.
Jackson v. Plumb (8 Johns. 295),
343.
Jackson v. Russell (4 Wend. 543), 53.
TABLE OF OASES.
xcvn
Beferences are to sections.
Jackson v. Seager (2 D. & L. 13), 284.
Jackson v. State (54 Ark. 243), 283.
Jackson v. State (1 Ind. 185), 315.
Jackson v. State (83 Ga. 787), 23.
Jackson v, Swope (Ind., 1893, 38 N.
E. Eep. 909), 350.
Jackson v. Tatebo (3 Wash. St. 456),
250.
Jackson v. Times (152 Pa. St. 406),
11.
Jackson v. Winchester (4 Dall. 206),
123.
Jackson v. Wood (3 Wend. 27), 157.
Jackson v. Woodworth(3Paige, 136),
356.
Jacksonville, etc. Co. v. Pen. Trans.
Co. (27 Fla. 157; 9 S. Rep. 661),
73o, 378.
Jacksonville, etc. Co. v. South worth
(32 111. A pp. 307), 363.
Jacobi V. Order of Germania (26 N.
Y. S. 318), 58.
Jacobs V. Duke (1 E. D. Smith, N. Y.,
271), 10.
Jacobs V. Hester (113 Mass. 157),
168.
Jacobs V. Shorey (48 N. H. 100), 69,
Jacobs' Case (5 Jones, N. C, 259),
345.
Jacoway v. Gault (20 Ark. 190), 136.
Jacqua v. Witham (106 Ind. 515),
218.
James v. Bligh (11 Allen, Mass., 4),
311.
James v. Farnell (1 Turn. & R. 417),
188.
James v. Ford (9 N. Y. S. 137), 8.
James v. James (81 Tex. 373), 158.
James v. Mickey (36 S. C. 370), 351.
James v. Walrath (8 Johns. 410), 23.
James v. Weightnjan (Fla., 1893, 12
S. Rep. 526), 159. .
James v. Woik (24 N. Y. S. 147), 9,
20.
Jameson v. Drinkard (12 Moore, 148),
198.
Jameson v. Emerson (83 Me. 309),
223.
Jameson v. Snyder (79 Wis. 280; 48
N. W. Rep. 261), 130.
Jamieson v. Ind. etc. Co. (46 N. Y.
421), 241.
Jamison v. Ludlow (3 La. Ann. 492),
214.
Jamison v. People (145 III. 357 ; 34
N. E. Eep. 468), 6, 84. 233.'
Janeway v. Skerritt (30 N. J. L. 97),
74.
Janney v. Brown (36 La. Ann. 118),
214.
Jardine v. Sheridan (2 C. & K. 24),
168.
Jarrell v. Jarrell (27 W. Va. 743).
233.
Jarrett v. Jarrett (11 W. Va. 563),
250.
Jasper v. Porter (3 McLean, 579), 343.
Jass V. Mohn (R. L, 1893, 36 AU.
Eep. 787), 303.
Jauncy v. Thorne (2 Barb. Ch. 40),
138.
Jeans v. Wheedon (2 M. & Rob. 484),
93.
Jefferds v. Alvord (151 Mass. 95), 9.
Jefferds v. People (5 Park. C. R. 547),
91.
Jefferson v. New York El. R. Co.
(182 N. Y. 483), 366.
Jefferson v. State (80 Ga. 16), 334.
Jefferson ville, etc. R. Co. v. Bo wen
(40 Ind. 545), 344.
Jeffersonville, etc. Co. v. Lanbam
(37 Ind. 171), 198.
Jeffries v. Jeffries (39 Ala. 655), 238.
Jenkins v. Collard (145 U. S. 546),
340.
Jenkins v. Lykes (19 Fla. 148), 217.
Jenkins v. Meagher (46 Miss. .84). 77.
Jenkins v. Railroad Co. (110 N. C.
438), 344.
Jenkins v. State (Fla,, 1893, 12 S.
Eep. 677), 229, 337.
Jenkyns v. Gaisford (33 L. J. Prob.
122), 269.
Jenner v. Joliffee (6 Johns. 9), 38, 80.
Jennings v. Bank (8 Mich. 181), 114.
XCVUl
TABLE OF CASES.
Jennings v. Moore (83 Mich. 331 ; 47
N. W. Rep. 137), 305.
Jennings v. Railroad Co. (97 N. Y.
438), 22B.
Jennison v. Citizens' Sav. Bank (85
N. Y. 546), 359.
Jennison v. Hapgood (10 Pick. 77), 56.
Jennison v. Mosely (Miss., 1893, 10
S. Rep. 583), 349.
Jenson v. McCorkle (154 Pa. St. 353),
220.
Jerman v. Tenneas (44 La. Ann. 620),
370.
Jesse V. Davis (34 Mo. App. 341), 60.
Jesse V. Parker (6 Gratt. 57), 131.
Jewel V. Jewel (1 How., U. S., 219),
57.
Jewell V. Centre (35 Ala. 498), 342.
Jewell V. Jewell (17 Pet. 313), 53.
Jiluier V. Schell (35 N. Y. Sup. Ct.
67), 60.
Jim V. State (4 Humph., Tenn., 389),
343.
Jinks V. Lewis (89 Ga. 787), 373.
Jobbins v. Gray (34 111. App. 208),
376.
John Morris Co. v. Burgess (44 111.
App. 37), 341.
Johnson v. Armstrong (Ala., 1893,
13 S. Rep. 13), 333, 331.
Johnson v. Bradstreet (81 Ga. 435),
253.
Johnson v. Broadway R. R. Co. (6
N. Y. S. 113), 193.
Johnson \. Brown (130 Ind. 61), 386.
Johnson v. Buckle (65 Hun, 601),
353.
Johnson v. Clarkson (3 Rich. Eq.
305), 310.
Johnson v. elements (25 Kan. 376),
181.
Johnson v. Com. (Ky., 1894, 23 S.
W. Rep. 507), 383.
Johnson v. Crippen (62 Miss. 597),
304.
Johnson v. Crotty (33 N. Y. S. 753),
186.
Johnson v. Culver (116 Ind. 278), 60.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Johnson v. Daverne (19 Johns. Ch.
134), 139.
Johnson v. Day (3 N. D. 395), 129.
Johnson v. Day (17 Pick., Mass.,
lOS), 150a.
Johnson v. Delaney (35 Tex. 42), 346.
Johnson v. East Tenn., Va. & P. Ry.
Co. (90 Ga. 810; 17 S. E. Rep.
131), 109.
Johnson v. Hart (83 Ga. 707), 311.
Johnson v. Heald (33 Md. 352), 300.
Johnson v. Howes (3 Stew., Ala.,
37), 148.
Johnson v. Johnson (65 Tex. 87), 354.
Johnson v. Johnson (114 111. 611),
233.
Johnson v. Josephs (75 Me. 544),
249.
Johnson v. Kelleher (115 Mass. 125;
29 N. E. Rep. 300), 13.
Johnson v. Kettler (84 HI. 315), 333.
Johnson v. Mar. B, R. (28 Neb. 493),
139.
Johnson v. Marsh (3 La. Ann. 773),
69.
Johnson v. Maxwell (87 N. C. 18),
249.
Johnson v. Merithew (80 Me. 115),
332.
Johnson v. Merry, etc, Co. (53 Fed.
Rep. 569), 366.
Johnson v. Miller (83 Iowa, 693), 151.
Johnson v. Mills (31 Neb. 534), 283.
Johnson v. N. Pac. E. Co. (47 Minn.
430), 193.
Johnson v. Parrotte (34 Neb. 26; 51
N. W. Rep. 290), 176.
Johnson v. People (140 111. 350 ; 29
N. E. Rep. 895), 11.
Johnson v. Phifer (6 Neb. 401), 208.
Johnson v. Powers (40 Vt. 611), 124.
Johnson v. Railroad Co. (51 Iowa,
25), 363.
Johnson v. Railroad Co. (90 Ala. 505),
130.
Johnson v. Ridir (Iowa, 1892, 50 N.
W. Rep. 36), 11.
Johnson v. Roberts (31 Md. 476), 233.
TABLE OP" OASES.
XCIX
References are to sections.
Johnson v.
76.
Johnson v.
374), 71
Johnson V.
Johnson v.
Johnson v.
Johnson v.
Johnson v.
Johnson v.
52.
Johnson v.
166.
Johnson v.
8, 234.
Johnson v.
Johnson v.
Johnson v.
Enssell (144 Mass. 409),
Sherwin (3 Gray, Mass. ,
State (59 Ala. 37), 93.
State (86 Ga. 90), 93.
State (61 Ga. 805), 95.
State (85 Ga. 561), 283.
State (37 Fla. 345), 343.
State (31 Tex. App. 368),
State (37 Tex. App. 135),
State (39 Tex. App, 150),
State (47 Ala. 9), 103.
State (18 Tex. App. 385), 7.
State (30 La. Ann. 881),
Johnson v. State (17 Ala. 618), 103.
Johnson v. Taylor (60 Tex. 360), 136.
Johnson v. Timmons (50 Tex. 531),
107.
Johnson v. Waknilla (9 S. Rep. 690;
28 Fla. 720), 146.
Johnson v. Wallace (53 Miss. 331),
139a.
Johnston v. Allen (100 N. C. 131), 366.
Johnston v. Markle Paper Co. (153
Pa. St. 189), 380.
Johnston v. Oregon S, L. & U. N. Co.
(1893, 31 Pac. Rep. 383), 186.
Johnston v. State (94 Ala. 35), 334.
Johnston v. Todd (5 Beav. 600, 603),
350.
Johnston Hard. Co. v. MuUer (72
Mich. 365), 354.
Joliet R. Co. V. Caul (43 111. App. 41),
203.
Jones V. Artevborn (11 Humph. 97),
138.
Jones V. Brooklyn (8 N. Y. S. 353),
178, 319.
Jones V. Charlotte, etc. (S. C, 1898,
17 S. E. Rep. 098), 13.
Jones V. Chicago, etc. Co. (43 Minn.
279), 188.
Jones V. Crow (33 Pa. St. 398), 339.
Jones V. Duchow (87 Cal. 109), 10.
.Tones v. Foxall (15 Beav. 338), 75.
Jones V. Gale's Adm'r (4 Martin, 635),
240.
Jones V. Harris (1 Strobh., S. C,
160), 330.
Jones V. Hays (4 McLean, 531), 242.
Jones V. Hough (77 Ala. 437), 131.
Jones V. Hoyt (10 Abb. N. C, 334),
359.
Jones V. Huggins (1 Dev. L., N. C,
323), 139.
Jones V. Jones (63 Hun, 630), 248.
Jones V. Jones (120 N. Y. 389), 73a.
Jones V. Jones (45 Md. 148), 345.
Jones V. Jones (36 Md. 447), 53.
Jones V. Kennedy (11 Pick. 125), 347.
Jones V. Knauss (31 N. J. Eq. 609),
326, S86.
Jones V. Laney (3 Tex. 343), 343.
Jones V. Lanier (3 Dev., S. C, L.
480), 353.
Jones V. Ludlow (6 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep.
57), 151.
Jones V. Lumber Co. (Ark., 1893, 23
S. W. Rep. 679), 350.
Jones V. Marks (47 CaJ. 342), 368.
Jones V. Mason (3 Stra. 833), 138.
Jones V. Mason (5 Rand., Va., 577X
215.
Jones V. Moore (7 Binn. 573), 69.
Jones V. Neale (1 Hughes C. C. 208),
361.
Jones V. O'Farrell (1 Nev. 354), 68.
Jones V. Perkins (54 Me. 393), 205.
Jones V. Pitcher (3 S. & R. 135), 144.
Jones V. Porter (59 Miss. 628), 135.
Jones V. Portland (88 Mich. 598), 53.
Jones V. President, etc. Portland (88
Mich. 598), 188.
Jones V. Reardon (3 Md. Ch. 57), 135.
Jones V. Reeves (6 Rich., S. C, 183),
254.
Jones V. Roberts (37 Mo. App. 163),
51.
Jones V. Rose (11 Jur. 379), 387.
Jones V. Slate Co. (16 How., N. Y..
139), 357.
TABLE OF CASES.
Jones V. Smith (31 S. C. 527), 268.
Jones V. Snyrler (117 Ind. 339), 199.
Jones V. St. Louis, etc. Co. (Ark.,
1890, 13 S. W. Rep. 416), 7.
Jones V. State (Miss., 1893, 12 S. Rep.
444), 103.
Jones V, State (57 Miss. 684), 5.
Jones V. State (65 Miss. 179 ; 3 S. Rep.
379), 174, 350.
Jones V. State (71 Ind. 66), 57.
Jones V. State (81 Tex. Or. Rep. 177),
383.
Jones V. State (Tex., 1893, 33 S. W.
Rep. 404), 333.
Jones V. State (53 Ark. 345), 103.
Jones V. Stevens (36 Neb. 849 ; 55 N.
W. Rep. 351), 341.
Jones V. Swank (Minn., 1893, 53 N.
W. Rep. 634), 349.
Jones V. Tucker (41 N. H. 546), 13,
193.
Jones V. Turpin (6 Heisk., Tenn.,
181), 176.
Jones V. United States (137 U. S.
203), 340.
Jones V. White (11 Humph., Tenn.,
368), 193, 193.
Jordan v. Circuit Court (69 Iowa.
177), 244.
Jordan v. Corey (3 Ind. 385), 136.
Jordan v. Hubbard (26 Ala. 433), 71.
Jordan v. Loftin (13 Ala. 547), S13.
Jordan v. Miller (75 Va. 442), 267.
Jordan v. Osgood (109 Mass. 457), 9.
Jordan v. State (81 Ala. 30), 101.
Jordan v. State (16 S. W. Rep. 543;
39 Tex. App. 449), 346.
Jordan v. Stewart (33 Pa. St. 244),
129.
Josephi V. Mady Clothing Co. (Mont.,
1893, 33 Pac. Rep. 10), 160.
Josey V. Davis (55 Ark. 318), 83.
Joy V. Diefendorf (130 N. Y. 6),
247.
Judd V. Gibbs (3 Gray, Mass., 530),
76.
Judge V. Jordan (81 Iowa, 519), 351.
Judson V. Lake (3 Day, 318), 150.
Eeferencea are to sections.
Juillard v. Chaffee (93 N. Y. 535),
213.
Jurner v. Gate (Ga., 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 971), 151.
K.
Kabok V. L. L Ins. Co. (51 Hun, 639;
4 N. Y. S. 718), 58.
Kahn v. Insurance Co. (Wye, 1894,
34 Pac. Rep. 1059), 75.
Kain v. Bare (Ind., 1893, 31 N. E.
Rep. 305), 347.
Kain V. Larkin (131 N. Y. 300), 33.
Kaiser v. State (35 Neb. 704), 5.
Kalbrier v. Leonard (34 Ind. 497), 239.
Kane v. Tarbitt (33 111. App. 311). 70.
Kane v. Troy (48 Hun, 619), 56.
Kankakee; etc. Co. v. Horan (131 111.
388; 33 N. E. Rep. 621), 76.
Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co. v. Mc-
Donald (51 Fed. Rep. 378; 2 C. C.
A. 153), 374.
Kansas City, etc. Co. v. Philips (Ala.,
1893, 13 S. Rep, 65), 337, 368, 377.
Kansas City, etc. Co. v. Stoner (51
Fed. Rep. 649; 3 C. C. A. 437),
193.
Kansas City, etc. Co. v. Webb fAla.,
1893, 11 S. Rep. 888), 316.
Kansas, etc. Co. v. Miller (3 Colo.
Ter. 443), 333.
Kansas, etc. Co. v. Richardson (35
Kan. 391), 12.
Kansas, etc. Co. v. Ryan (49 Kan.
1), 11.
Kansas, etc. Co. v. Smith (90 Ala.
35 ; 8 S. Rep. 43), 38a, 58.
Kant V. Kessler (114 Pa. St. 603), 171.
Karney v. Paisley (13 Iowa, 89), 166.
Karney v. State (68 Miss. 333 ; 8 &
Rep. 393), 331.
Kaufman v. Schneider (35 111. Ayp.
256), 153.
Kaufman v. Springer (38 Kan. 730),
50.
Kay V. Thomson (10 Am. L. Reg.,
N. S., 594), 193.
TABLE OS CASES.
CI
Beferenoes are to sections.
Kaywood v. Barnett (3 Dev. & B.
91), 53.
Kean v. Rice (12 S. & R. 303, 308). 143.
Keaton v. Mayer (71 Ga, 649), 75.
Keaton v. McGirier (34 Ga. 317), 136.
Keator v. Colorado, etc. Co. (Colo.,
1893, 33 Pac. Rep. 857j, 371.
Keegan v. Carpenter (47 Ind. 597),
73.
Keeler v. Shears (6 Wend. 540), 34.
Keely v. Oliver (N. C, 1893, 18 S. E.
Rep. 69S), 313.
Keen v. South St. Louis Co. (40 Mo.
19), 300.
Keener v. State (18 Ga. 194), 103.
Keesey v. Gage (Tex., 1893, 31 S. W.
Rep. 897), 380,
"Keeveny v. Ottman (36 Wkly. L.
Bui. 65), 376.
Kegg V. State (7 Ohio St. 79), 310.
Keidan v. Winnegar (95 Mich. 430 ;
54 N. W. Rep. 901), 319.
Keifer v. Carnsi (f D. C. 156), 73.
Keisling v. Readle (1 Ind. App. 340),
377.
Keith V. Knoche (43 111. App. 161),
355, 378.
Keith V. Lathrop (10 Cush., Mass.,
553), 139.
Keith V. New Haven & N. R. Co.
(140 Mass. 175), 345.
Keith V. Wells (33 Pac. Rep. 991 ; 14
Colo. 331), 333.
Keithe v. Kibbe (10 Cash., Mass., 35),
60.
Kellar v. Moore (51 Ala. 840), 340.
Keller v. Nutz (5 S. & R. 351), 53.
Keller v. Railway Co. (37 Minn. 178),
71.
Keller V. State (123 Ind. 110; 33 N.
E. Rep. 138), 385.
Kelley v. People (55 N. Y. 565), 69.
Kelley v. Saltmarsh (146 Mass. 585),
205.
Kelley v. State (55 N. Y. 565), 80.
Kellogs V. Thompson (143 Mass. 76),
307.
Kelly V. Carter (55 Ark. 112), 313.
Kelly V. Harrison (69 Miss. 456), 150a.
Kelly V. People (17 Colo. 130), 6.
Kelly V. People (55 N. Y. 565), 68.
Kelly V. McGuire (15 Ark. 555), 53.
Kelly V. Insurance Co, (83 Iowa, 137),
370.
Kelly V. Kelley (80 Wis. 490), 382.
Kelly V. Owens (Cal., 1893, 30 Pac.
Rep. 596), 9, 250.
Kelly V, People (17 Colo. 130; 29 Pac.
Rep. 805), 324.
Kelly V. Railroad Co. (58 Ala. 489),
348.
Kelly V. Rosenstock (45 Md. 389),
136.
Kelly V. Rowane (33 Mo. App. 440),
199.
Kelly V. Story (6 Heisk. 302), 238.
Kelm V. Briggs (46 Me. 467), 150tt.
Kelsey v. Busch (3 Hill, N. Y., 440),
80.
Kelsey v. Hanmer (18 Conn. 311),
130, 138.
Kelsey v. Murphy (26 Pa. St. 78),
69.
Kelsoe v. State (47 Ala. 573), 9.
Kemble v. Lull (3 McLean, 272), 2l7.
Kemp V. Donhan (5 Har., Del., 417),
166.
Kendall v. Field (14 Me. 30), 60.
Kendall v. Powers (4 Neb. 533), 147.
Kendrick v. Central R. R. Co. (89
Ga. 783), 186.
Kendrick v. Latham (6 S. Rep. 871 ;
28 Fla. 819), 33.
Kendrick v. State (10 Humph. 479),
120.
Kendrick v. Turbell (26 Vt. 416), 77.
Kenerson v. Henry (101 Mass. 152),
108.
Kenezleber v. Wahl (92 Cal. 202),
373.
Kennard v. Kennard (63 N. H. 308),
143.
Kennedy v. Currie (3 Wash. St. 443),
7, 360.
Kennedy v. Doyle (10 Allen, 161),
20.
oil
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
Kennedy v. HoUaday (16 S. W. Eep.
68S; 105 Mo. 24), 176.
Kennedy v. People (39 N. T. 245),
187, 193.
Kennedy v. State (Fla., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 858), 5.
Kennedy v. State (39 N. Y. 50), 23.
Kennedy v. Upsliaw (66 Tex. 442),
248, 253, 334, 349, 353.
Kennegai- v. State (120 Ind. 176), 23.
Kenosha Co. v. Shedd (48 N. W.
Rep. 933; 82 Iowa, 540), 31, 244f
Kent V. Garvin (1 Gray, Mass., 148),
60.
Kent V. Insurance Co. (N. t)., 1892,
50 N. W. Rep. 85), 233.
Kent V. Lincoln (32 Vt. 591), 8.
Kent V. State (42 Oliio, 439), 359.
Kent V. White (27 Ind. 390), 247.
Kenton v. First Nat. Bank (Ky.,
1892, 19 S. W. Rep. 841), 83, 371.
Kentucky t. I. Cent. Co. (Ind., 1893,
30 N. E. Rep. 802), 76.
Kentucljy Cent. Ry. Co. v. Smith
(Ky., 1893, 20 S. W. Rep. 393), 344.
Kentzler v. Kentzler (3 Wash. St.
166), 36, 148.
Kenyon v. Luther (4 N. Y. S. 498), 9.
Kenyon v. Pierce (17 R. I. 794), 308.
Keppel V. Petersburg R. Co. (Chase's
Dec. 167), 238.
Kermot v. Ayer (11 Mich. 181), 237.
Kern v. Van Phul (7 Minn. 436), 205
Kernam v. Baham (13 S. Rep. 155,
La., 1893), 220.
Kernan v. State (65 Md. 253), 9.
Kernin v. Hill (37 III. 209), 140.
Kernitz v. L. I. City (50 Hun, 428),
239.
Kerper v. Wood (29 N. E. Rep. 501 ;
48 Ohio St. 613), 69.
Kerr v. Hill (27 W. Va. 576), 223.
Kerr v. Hodge (39 111. App. 546), 851.
Kerr v. Love (1 Wash. St. 172), 60.
Kessel v. Albelis (56 Barb. 363), 243.
Kefcchum, In re (5 N. Y. S. 566), 332.
Kettering v, Jacksonville (50 111. 39),
143a.
Key V. Dent (14 Md. 86), 151.
Keyes v. State (122 Ind. 537), 346.
Keyton v. Brawford ^5 Gratt. 39),
223.
Kibbe v. Bancroft (17 111. 18), 60.
Kidder v. Blaisdell (45 Me. 461), 244.
Kidder v. Horrobbin (73 N. Y. 169),
320.
Kidder v. Vandersloot (114 111. 130),
18, 208.
Kidd's Adm'r v. Alexander (1 Rand.,
Va., 456), 134.
Kidnell v. Larson (Tex., 1893, 22 S.
W. Rep. 534), 11.
Kilbourn v. Latta (7 Mackey, 80),
250.
Kilbourn v. Thompson (105 U. S.
168, 181,205), 388.
Kilburn v. Bennett (3 Met., Mass.,
199), 231.
Kilgore v. Stanley (90 Ala. 523), 130.
Kilgour V. Gockley (83 111. 109), 232.
Kilgour V. Miles (6 J. & J., Md., 274),
145.
Killebrevv v. Murphy (3 Heisk. 546),
238.
Kilmer v. St. Louis, Ft. S. & W. B.
Co. (37 Kan. 84; 14 Pac. Rep.
465), 283.
Kilpatrick v. Com. (31 Pa. St. 198),
244.
Kilpatrick v. Dean (4 N. Y. S. 708),
367.
Kilrow V. Com. (89 Pa. St. 480), 823.
Kimball v. Chappell (37 Abb. N. C.
437), 322. '
Kimball v. Saguin {Iowa, 1892, 53
N. W. Rep. 116), 376, 380.
Kimball v. Walker (30 111. 511), 203.
Kimberly v. Arms (139 U. S. 512),
258.
Kimtsen v. Davis (51 Minn. 363; 58
N. W. Rep. 646), 150o.
Kindall v. White (3 Me. 245), 150a.
King, In re (29 W. N. C. 426), 84.
King V. Chase (15 N. H. 8), 160.
King V. Donahue (110 Mass. 155),
189a.
TABLE or CASES.
cm
Beferenoes are to sections.
King V. Enterprise Ins. Co. (45 lad.
43), 363.
King V. Iowa Midland R, Co. (34
Iowa, 458), 344.
King V. Jacobson (58 Hun, 610),
250.
King V. King (43 Mo. App. 454), 56,
168.
King V. Little (1 Cush. 486), 818.
King V. Luff (8 East, 193), 841.
King V. Merritt (34 N. W. Rep. 689 ;
67 Midi. 194), 106.
King V. Pealinaan (80 N. J. Eq. 816),
349.
King V. Railroad Co. (87 N. Y. S.
973), 334.
King V. Rea (31 Pac. Rep. 1084; 13
Colo. 69), 128.
King V. Sears (Ga., 1893, 18 S. E.
Rep. 830), 107.
King V. Second Ave. R. R. Co. (26
N. Y. S. 978), 193.
King V. State (44 Ind. 885), 33.
King V. State (91 Tenn. 617), 103,
378.
King V. State (9 Fla. 617), 331.
King V. State (77 Ga. 734), 850.
King V. Woodruff (23 Conn. 56), 208.
King V. Worthington (73 111. 1()I), 30.
Kingen v. State (50 Ind. 537), 71.
Kingfreed v. Pullen (54 Me. 398),
876.
Kingman v. Cowles (103 Mass. 383),
148.
Kingman v. Paulsen (186 Ind. 507),
159. '
Kingman v. Sparrow (13 Barb. 301),
889.
Kingory v. United States (44 Fed.
Rep. 669), 337.
Kingsbury v. Moses (45 N. H. 223),
85.
Kingston v. Kincaid (1 Wash., U. S.,
448), 77.
Kinnear v. Mackey (85 111. 90), 83.
Kinney v. Berran (6 Gush. 304), 5.
Kinney v. Farnsworth(17Conn. 355);
Kinney v. Springfield (35 Mo. App.
297), 203.
Kinney v. United States (54 Fed.
Rep. 313), 60.
Kinsey v. Bennett (37 S. C. 319 ; 15
S. E. Rep. 965), 246.
Kip V. Brigham (6 Johns. 158), 159.
Kirby v. State (5 S. W. Rep. 165; 23
Tex. App. 13), 90, 93.
Kirk V. Hamilton (102 U. S. 68),
83.
Kirk V. Kirk (33 N. E. Rep: 552; 137
N. Y. 510), 151.
Kirkland v. Smith (3 Martin, N. S.,
497), 148.
Kirksey v. Kirksey (41 Ala. 626),
139a.
Kiser v. Dannenburg (88 Ga. 541),
67.
Kiser v. Randleman (5 Jones' L. 488),
241.
Kissam v. Forrest (35 Wend. 651),
334.
Kitchen v. State (29 Tex. App. 45),
383.
Kitner v. Whitlock (88 111. 513), 247.
Kittridge v. Russell (114 Mass. 67),
80.
Kleiman v. Geiselman (45 Mo. App.
497), 33.
Klein v. Landman (89 Mo. 359), 234.
Klein v. McNamara (54 Miss. 90),
333.
Klein v. People (113 III. 596), 6.
Klepsch V. Donald (4 Wash. St. 436),
344.
Kley V. Healy (187 N. Y. 555 ; 3 N. Y.
331), 838, 370.
Kline v. Baker (99 Mass. 254), 143.
Kline v. Baker (106 Mass. 161), 33.
Kling V. Kansas City (37 Mo. App.
331), 178.
Klink V. People (16 Colo. 467), 338.
Knapp Case (9 Pick. 496), 95.
Knapp V. Baily (9 Me. 19-5), 833.
Knapp V. Maltby (13 Wend. 587),
128,
Knapp V. Marlboro (89 Vt. 283), 205.
CIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
Knapp V. Runals (37 Wis. 135), 253.
Knapp V. Warner (57 N. Y. 668), 221.
Kiieeland v. Luce (141 U. S. 437),
371.
Knick V. Knick (75 Va. 12), 220.
Knight V. Clements (8 A. & El. 215),
129.
Knight V. Dyer (57 Me. 176), 210.
Knight V. Packard (3 McCord, 71),
311.
Knighton v. Smith (1 Oreg. 376), 136.
Knode v. Williams (17 Wall. 588),
349.
Knoll V. State (55 Wis. 249), 193.
Knott V. Knott (li Oreg. 142), 207.
Knower v. Haines (31 Fed. Rep. 513),
243.
Knox, In re (31 Pa. St. 220), 269.
Knox V. Barbee (3 Bibb, Ky., 526),
211.
Knox V. Bowersox (6 Ohio Cir. Ct.
275), 333.
Knox V. Clark (123 Mass. 316), 198.
Knox V. Jenks (7 Mass. 488), 236.
Knox V. Knox (95 Ala. 495; 11 S.
Rep. 204), 248.
Koetler v. Man. Ry. Co. (59 Hun,
033), 56.
Kollenberger v. People (9 Colo. 333),
90.
Kolsky V. Loveman (Ala., 1893, 12 S.
Rep. 720), 249.
Koontz V. Owens (109 Mo. 1; 18 S.
W. Rep. 928), 168, 375.
Koppert V. Nagg(37 111. App. 23), 149.
Korwitz V. Wright (37 Tex. 82), 60.
Kouhn V. Schroth (44 111. App. 513),
380.
Kramer v. Com. (87 Pa. St. 299), 9.
Kranioh v. Sherwood (93 Mich. 397),
208.
Krebs v. State (8 Tex. App. 1), 103.
Krekeler v. Ruther (63 N. Y. 372),
160.
Kreps V. Carlisle (Pa., 1893, 27 Atl.
Rep. 741), 309.
Kreuzberger v. Wingfleld (96 Cal.
251), 209.
Krey v. Schlusner (62 Hun, 630), 836.
Kriel v. Com. (5 Bush, Ky., 363), 381.
Krummer v. Christopher & Tenth
St. R. Co. (3 Misc. Rep. 298),
380.
Kruse v. Chester (66 Cal. 353), 141.
Kruse v. Wilson (79 111. 333), 357.
Kuehler v. Adler (78 N. Y. 287), 220.
Kuh V. Michigan Bank (93 Mich.
511), 60.
Kuhl V. Mayer (28 N. J. Eq. 84, 85),
84.
Kuhns V. Chicago, etc. Co. (65 Iowa,
528; 22 N. W. Rep. 661), 189.
Kunde v. State (22 Tex. App. 65), 69.
Kurz V. Fish (58 Hun, 602), 281.
Kux V. Central M. Sav. -Bank (93
Mich. 511j, 60.
Kyburg v. Perkins (6 Cal. 674), 143.
Kyle V. Frost (29 Ind. 398), 166.
L.
Labaree v. Klesterman (49 N. W.
Rep. 1102; 33 Neb. 150), 73, 337.
Labor v. Crane (56 Mich. .58o), 124.
Lacas v. Railroad Co. (93 Mich. 412),
58.
Lachance v. Loblein (15 Mo. App.
460), 140.
Lacou V. Higgins (3 Stark. 178), 143.
Laoon v. Lacon (W. N. 1891, p. 25),
215.
Ladd V. Blunt (4 Mass. 403), 146.
Ladow V. Groom (1 Denio, N. Y.,
429), 357.
Lafayette Bank v. Metcalf (29 Mo.
App. 384), 252.
Lafayette, etc. Co. v. El man (30 Ind.
83), 73a.
Lafferty v. Moore (33 N. Y. 658), 84.
Lagan v. Glover (77 Tex. 448), 143.
Lahn v. Gustafson (73 Iowa, 633; 85
N. W. Rep. 660), 366.
Laidley v. Cummings (83 Ky. 606,
607), 141, 243.
Laidley v. Rogers (67 Hun, 653), 359.
Laing v. Rush (66 Hun, 635), 376.
TABLE OF CASES.
CV
Keferenoes are to sections.
Laing v. United States N. J. E. Co.
(54 N. J. L. 576), 8, 199.
Lnke v. Gray (35 Iowa, 462), 208.
Lake v. Ranney (33 Baib., N. Y., 50,
68), 234.
Lake Erie, etc. Co. v. Hatch (6 Ohio
Cir. Ct. 230), 241.
Lake Erie, etc. Co. v. Morain (29 N.
E. Rep. 809; 36 111. App. 862),
341, 330.
Lake Ont. etc. Co. v. Judson (122 N.
Y. 278), 247.
Lake Shore, etc. Co. v. Brown (123
III. 162), 381.
Lake Shore, etc. Co. v. Herrick (29
N. E.'^Rep. 1052; 49 Ohio St. 25),
56.
Lake Shore, etc. Co. v. Hundt (140
111. 525), 18, 20.
Lakeiis v. Hazlett(37 Minn. 441). 339.
Lally V. Rossman (82 Wis. 147; 51
N. W. Rep. 1132), 371.
Lalor V. McDonald (44 Mo. App. 439),
380.
Lamance v. Byrnes (17 Nev. 197), 7,
375.
Lamar v. Pearce (90 Ga. 377; 17 S.
E. Rep. 92), 50, 76, 80, 142.
Lamb v. Davenport (1 Sawy., XJ. S.,
609), 238.
Lamb v. State (66 Md. 285), 217.
Lambert v. People (6 Abb. N. C.
181), 77.
Lambert v. Smith (1 Cranch, U. S.,
361), 67.
Lambert's Estate, In re (10 Pa. Co.
Ct. E. 10), 210.
Lamberty v. Roberts (9 N. Y. S. 607 ;
56 Hun, 649), 82.
Lamoure v. Caryl (4 Den. 170), 199.
Lamphire v. Cowan (39 Vt. 420), 232.
Lamphire v. Slaiighter(61 How. Pr.,
N. Y., 36), 212.
Larapton v. Haggard (3 Mon. 146),
237.
Lanahan v. Lawton (50 N. J. Eq.
376 ; 23 Atl. Eep. 476), 363.
Lanbach v. Mires (141 Pa. St. 447), 130.
Lancaster v. Collins (115 U. S. 222),
254.
Lancaster v. Lane (14 111. 242), 147.
Lancaster v. State (9 Tex. App. 400),
. '23.
Lancaster v. Washington I. Co. (62
Mo. 121), 232.
Landa v. Obert (79 Tex. 33), 156.
Landaff's Petition (34 N. H. 164), 72.
Land Co. v. Calhoun (16 W. Va. 362),
244.
Lander v. Lander (5 Ir. C. L. Eep.
27), 333.
Landford v. Jones (IS Oreg. 307),
347.
Landin v. Anderson (76 AJa. 403),
244.
Lindis V. State (70 Ga. 651), 6.
Landsberger v. Gorham (5 Cal. 4.50),
108.
Landt v. Mayor (Colo., 1893, 31 Pac.
Eep. 524), 250.
Lane v. Farmer (13 Ark. 63), 226.
Lane v. Harris (16 Ga. 317), 243.
Lane v. Innes (43 Minn. 157), 150a.
Lane v. Johnson (59 Vt. 237), 211.
Lane v. Lane (21 S. W. Eep. 99; 113
Mo. 504), 369.
Lane v. L, E. E. Co. (23 N. Y. 29),
842.
Lane v. Marshall (65 Vt. 85), 304.
Lane v. Morse (6 How., N. Y., 394),
357.
Lane v. Union Bank (29 N. E. Eep.
613), 216-.
Lane v. Wilcox (55 Barb., N. Y.,
615), 195.
Lang V. Sanger (76 Wis. 71 ; 44 N. W.
Eep. 1085), 8.
Langan v. Langan (89 Cal. 186 ; 26
Pac. Rep. 794), 208.
Langdon v. Astor (16 N. Y. 34), 215.
Langdon v. Keith (9 Vt. 299), 233.
Langdon V. People (133 111. 383; 24
N. E. Rep. 874), 5, 378.
Langer v. Merritt(120 N. Y. 114), 148.
Langer v. Meservey (80 Iowa, 158;
45 N. W. Rep. 733), 233.
C¥l
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to seotiona.
Langford v. Jones (18 Oreg. 307), 190.
Langworthy v. Green (88 Mich. 207),
186.
Lanier v. Foust (81 Tex. 186; 16
S. W. Eep. 994), 208.
Lapham v. Atlas Ins. Co. (24 Pick.,
Mass., 1), 193.
Laras v. Com. (84 Pa. St. 208), 188.
Large v. Passmore (5 S. & E., Pa.,
51), 315.
Larimore v. Bobb (Mo., 1893, 21
S. W. Rep. 932), 279.
Larkin v. Eailroad Co. (Iowa, 1893,
53 N. W, Eep. 480), 141, 143a. .
Lavkins v. Biddle (21 Ala. 253), 233.
Larking v. Rhodes (5 Port., Ala.,
195), 267.
Larman v. Knight (140 111. 132), 213,
246.
Larrowe v. Lewis (58 Hun, 601), 216.
Larson v. Jolmson (42 111. App. 198),
216.
Larson v. Lombard Inv. Co. (51
Minn. 141 ; 53 N. W. Rep. 179),
186, 379.
Larten v. Gilliam (2 111. 577), 141.
La Rue v. St. Anthony & D. Ele-
vator Co. (S. D., 1893, 54 N. W.
Rep. 806), 73.
Lasater v. Van Hook (77 Tex. 650),
20.
Las Caygas v. Larionda (4 Mart.,
La., 283), 149.
Lash V. Rendall (72 Ind. 475), 83.
Lassiter v. State (67 Ga. 739), 330.
Lassone v. Boston & L. E. Co. (N. H.,
1890, 34 Atl. Eep. 903), 58.
Latham v. Brown (48 Kan. 190), 199.
Latham v. Shipley (Iowa, 1892, 53
N. W. Eep. 343), 198.
Lathrop v. Adkinson (87 Ga. 389),
134.
Lathrop v. Foster (51 Me. 867), 313.
Latimer v. Elgin (4 Desaus. 26, 32),
143.
Latley v. Emery (59 Hun, 237), 11.
Lauderdale v. State (Tex., 1893, 19
S. W. Eep. 67«), 89,
Lauer v. Kuder (111., 1893, 34 N. R
Eep. 484), 247, 250.
Laughlin v. Street E. E. Co. (63
Mich. 220), 198.
Lauter v. Simpson (3 Ind. App. 293),
363, 366.
Lavette v. Sage (29 Conn. 577), 208.
Lavin v. Mutual Aid Soc. (74 111.
349), 58, 144.
Law V. Merrill (6 Wend. 268, 277),
81.
Law V. Scott (5 Har. & J. 438), 175.
La whom v. Carter (11 Bush, Ky., 7),
60.
Lawless v. Qviele (8 Ir. L. 383), 38.
Lawlor v. Fritcher (54 Hun, 586), 9.
Lawrence v. Barker (5 Wend. 305),
347.
Lawrence v. Guaranty Co. (51 Kan.
222; 32 Pac. Rep. 816). 83.
Lawrence v. Hunt (10 Wend. 83, 84),
160.
Lawrence v. Minturn (17 How.,
U. S., 100), 226.
Lawrence v. Myrieman Marble Co.
(1 Misc. Rep. 105), 187.
Lawrence v. Tennant (64 N. H. 332),
108, 115.
Lawrence v. Wilson (Mass., 1894,
35 N. E. Eep. 858), 66.
Lawson v. Conaway (37 W. Va. 15U),
194.
Lawson V. Kelly (83 Tex. 497), 151.'
Lawson v. Lawson (117 111. 98), 313.
Lay V. Neville (25 Cal. 545). 175.
Lay Grae v. Peterson (3 Sandf.,
N. Y., 388), 71.
Layman's Wills (40 Minn. 373), 171.
Lazard v. Mer. & Min. Co. (Md.,
1893, 36 Atl. Rep. 897), 336.
Lazare v. Jacques (15 La. Ann. 599),
203.
Lazarus v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co.
(69 Hun. 190), 199.
Lazear v. Union Bank (53 Md. 78),
205.
Lazier v. Westcott (26 N. Y. 146),
243.
TABLE OF CASES.
cvn
Eeferences are to sections.
Leach v. Linde (24 N. Y. S. 176). 141.
Leach v. Shelby (5S Miss. 681), 208.
Leache v. State (23 Tex. App. 279),
231.
Leagel v. Railroad Co. (83 Iowa, 330),
145.
Leahey v. Marsh (155 Pa. St. 458),
13, 50.
Leakey v. Gunter (35 Tex. 400), 213.
Lear v. Durgin (64 N. H. 618), 205.
Learmouth, Ex parte (6 Madd. 113),
134.
Learned v. Hall (133 Mass. 417), 7,
Lears v. Rice (65 Mich. 97), 70.
Leary v. Leary (18 Ga. 696), 9.
Leath v. Baker (83 Me. 28), 363.
Leathers v. Wrecking Co. (3 Woods,
683), 38.
Leatherwood v. Sullivan (81 Ala.
458), 343.
Leavitt v. Baker (83 Me. 28), 362.
Leavitt v. Dodge (61 Hun, 627), 11.
Leavitt v. Windsor Land & Invest-
ment Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 459), 306.
Le Ban v. Vanderbilt (3 Redf., N. Y.,
384), 67.
Le Baron v. United States (4 Wall.
642), 31.
Le Bean v. People (35 N. Y. 333), 53.
Le Carperitier v. Belery (4 Mart., La.,
454), 140..
Leckman v. Harding (65 111. 505), 136.
Ledbetter v. State (23 Tex. App. 247),
101.
Leddy v. Barney (139 Mass. 394), 305.
Lee V. Baldwin (10 Ga. 308), 304.
Lee V. Brown (31 Kan. 458), 73.
Lee V. Church (52 Barb., N. Y., 116),
315.
Lee V. Shivers (70 Ala. 388), 323,
Lee V. State (21 Ohio St. 151), 323.
Lee V, State (56 Ark. 4; 19 S. W.
Rep. 6), 346.
Lee, Adm'r, v. Hill (87 Va. 497), 131,
133.
Leeds v. Amherst (14 Sim. 357), 276.
Leeds v. Marine Ins, Co. (2 Wheat.,
U. S., 380), 67, 76.
Lees V. Lamprey (43 N. H. 13), 69.
Leese v. Clarke (29 Cal. 664), 33.
Lee Silver Co. v. Engelbach (18 Colo.
106; 31 Pac. Rep. 771), 7.
Lefavour v. Yandes (8 Blackf. 240),
69.
Lefevre v. Lefevre (59 N. Y. 434),
322.
Legatt V. ToUervey (14 East, 302),
127.
Legendre v. N. O. Brew. Co. (La.,
1893, 13 S. Rep. 837). 140.
Legg V. Bloomington (40 111. App.
185), 8. '
Leggat V. Leggat (Mont., 1893, 33
Pac. Rep. 5), 66.
Legge V. Edmonds (25 L. J. Ch. 125),
73.
Lego V. Medley (79 Wis. 211), 322.
Lehigh v. Railroad Co. (41 N. J. Eq.
187), 309.
Leibe v. Hebersmith (3 S. Rep. 283),
138.
Leiber v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co;
(84 Iowa, 97; 50 N. W. Rep. 547)*
11, 330.
Leideman v. Schultz (24 Eng. L. &
Eq. 305), 317.
Leidlein v. Mayer (95 Mich. 586 ; 55
N. W. Rep. 367), 38a.
Leigh, In re (1893, Prob. 83), 138.
Leigh V. Everheart (4 T. B. Mon.,
Ky., 379), 305.
Leigh V. Hind (17 E. C. L. 774), 277.
Leighton v. Sargent (11 Fost., N. H.,
130), 193.
Leiter v. Day (35 III. App. 248), 21.,
Leland v. Wilkinson (0 Pet. 317), 242.
Lemert v. Shafer (Ind., 1893, 31 N.
E. Rep. 1128), 232.
Lenahan v. People (5 T. & C. 265),
239.
Lenhart v. Allen (33 Pa. St. 313), 67.
Lennig's Estate, In re (154 Pa. St.
209; 35 Atl. Rep. 1069), 322.
Leonard v. Allen (11 Cush. 241), 10.
Leonard v. German F. Ins. Co. (23
N. Y. S. 684), 373.
CVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferences are to sections.
Leonard v. Railway Co. (31 Oreg.
655), 39.
Leonard v. So. P. Ry. Co. (21 Oreg.
555), 8, 201.
Leonard v. Territory (3 Wash. Ter,
381), 5, 7.
Leonard v. Tillotaon (97 N. Y. R), 80.
Lepla V. Minn. Tribune Co. (35 Minn.
311), 168.
Leport V. Todd (33 N. J. L. 124),
234.
Leslie v. Leslie (110 Mo. 31), 362.
Lester v. State (32 Ark. 737, 93.
Levi V. Black well (35 S. C. 511), 380.
Levi V. Welsh (45 N. J. Eq. 867), 308.
Levison v. State (54 Ala. 520), 93.
Levy V. Cadet (17 S. & R. 137), 69.
Levy V. Mitchell (8 Ark. 138). 73a,
Levy V. Slate (38 Tex. App. 203),
350.
Lewars v. Weaver (121 Pa. St. 2C8),
367.
Lewin v. Rusaell (42 N. Y. 251), 309.
Lewis V. Adams (61 Ga. 549), 66.
Lewis V. Alkire (38 W. Va. 504),
376.
Lewis V. Bacon (3 H. & M. 89), 355.
Lewis V. Bruton (74 Ala. 317), 240.
Lewis V. Fish (40 Mo. App. 373), 362.
Lewis V. Hadmon (56 Ala. 186), 33.
Lewis V. Hitchcock (10 Fed. Rep. 7),
19.
Lewis V. Kramer (3 Md. 265), 58.
Lewis V. Lewis (5 La. Ann. 388), IfiO.
Lewis V. Lewis (36 Tex. App. 115),
150a.
Lewis V. McCIure (8 Oreg. 273), 243.
Lewis V. Meginnis (30 Fla. 419), 58,
00, 67, 309.
Lewis V. Merritt (113 N. Y. 388), 308.
Lewis V. Pallin (48 Mo. App. 657),
380.
Lewis V. Roberts (103 E. C. L. 39), 30.
Lewis V. Roulo (93 Mich. 475), 120.
Lewis V. Sapio (1 M. & W. 39), 139.
Lewis V. Smith (107 Mass. 334), 8.
Lewis V. State (15 S. E. Rep. 697 ; 90
Ga. 95), 33, 334, 334.
Lewis V. State (Ga., 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 986), 350.
Lewis V. State (Tex., 1893, 24 S. W.
Rep. 903), 239.
Lewis V. United States (92 U. S. 631),
206.
Lewis V. Wintrebe (76 Ind. 13). 244.
Lewke v. D. D. E, B. etc. Co. (46
Hun, 383). 57.
Lexington v. Headley (5 Bush, Ky.,
508), 143a.
Liddell v. Fisher (48 Mo. App. 449),
24.
Liddon v. Hodnett (23 Fla. 442), 142c.
Life Ins. Co. v. Norris (:il N. J. Eq.
583-585), 84.
Lift V. Lingane (17 R. L 420; 22 Atl.
Rep. 942), 176.
Liggett V. Glenn (51 Fed. Rep. 381),
173.
Lighthouse v. Railroad Co. (S. D.,
1893, 54 N. W. Rep. 330), 386.
Lilienthal's Tobacco v. United States
(97 U. S. 337, 266), 249.
Lillis V. Erin Ditch Co. (95 Cal. 553),
70.
Lilly V. Wagoner (27 111. 395), 331.
Limberger v. Tidwell (104 N. C. 506),
136.
Lime Rock Bank v. Hewitt (53 Me.
531), 73a, 134.
Linck V. Litchfield (141 111. 469; 31
N. E. Rep. 123), 239, 356.
Lincoln, In re (19 Fed. Rep. 460), 34.
Lincoln v. Bartells (6 Wend. 475).
143, 243.
Lincoln v. Taunton Co. (9 Allen,
Mass., 122). 195.
Lind V. Lind (Minn., 1893, 54 N. W.
Rep. 934), 231.
Lindley v. Sullivan (133 Ind. 588; 38
N. E. Rpp. 361), 250.
Lindsay V. Chicago (115 III. 120),
143a.
Lindsay v. Garvin (31 S. C. 259), 205.
Lindsay v. Miller (2 Pet. 660), 229.
Lindsay v. People (63 N. Y. 143), 7,
193, 823.
TABLE OF CASES.
CIX
Beferences are to sections.
Lindsay v. Reilly (50 N. J. L. 636; 15
Atl. Rep. 679), 150.
Linecura v. State (29 Tex. App. 328),
10.
Linfield v. Old Colony R. R. Co. (10
Cush. 570), 360.
Link V. Sheldon (64 Hun, 633; 18
N. Y. S. 815), 188, 193, 336, 367.
Linn, Boyd, etc. Co. v. Terrill (13
Bush, Ky., 463), 268.
Linsley v. Brown (13 Conn. 192), 208.
Linton v. Allen (154 Mass. 432), 32,
366.
Linton v. Com. (46 Pa. St. 294). 312.
Linton v. Hurley (14 Gray, Mass.,
191), 193.
Lipe V. McClery (41 111. App. 29), 220.
Lippitt V. Kelly (46 Vt. 523), 210,
217.
Lipscombe v. Hblmes (2 Campb. 441),
83.
List V. Kortpeter (26 Ind. 27), 250.
Lister v. Smith (33 L. J. Prob. 29),
222.
Listman v. Hickey (65 Hun, 8; 19
N. Y. S. 8S0), 24.
Little V. Com. (25 Gratt., Va., 921),
176.
Little y. Downing (37 N. H. 355),
229.
Little T. Herndon (10 Wall. 31), 129.
Little V. Keon (1 N. Y. Code R. 4),
312.
Little. V. Lischkofe (Ala., 1893, 12 S.
Rep. 429), 199, 339. ,
Little T. Thompson (2 Greenl. , Me.,
228), 250.
Little Pittsburg Con. Mining Co. v.
Little Chief Cons. Mining Co. (11
Colo. 223), 226.
Little Rook v. Railroad Co. (56 Ark.
495), 366.
Little Rock Trust Co. v. Martin (21
' S. "W. Rep. 468; 57 Ark. 277),
128.
Littlehale v. Dix (11 Cush. 265), 361,
Littler V. Thompson (2 Beav. 129).
281.
Litton V. Wright (1 Ind. App. 92; 27
N. E. Rep. 329), 187.
Liverpool, etc. G. W. Co, v. Phenix
Ins. Co. (129 U. S. 464), 242.
Livingston, Appeal of (63 Conn. 68 ;
26 Atl. Rep. 58), 67, 248.
Livingston Case (14 Gratt., Va.,592),
52.
Livingston v. Metro. R. R. Co. (1?
N. Y. S. 203), 186.
Livingston v, Tompkins (4 Johns.,
N. Y, Ch. 415), 305.
Llewellyn's Case (13 Pa. Co. Ct. R.
126), 332.
Lloyd V. Davis (3 Ind. App. 170),
174.
Lloyd v. Farrell (48 Pa. St. 73), 205,
Lloyd V. HoUenback (98 Mich. 203 ;
57 N, W. Rep. 110), 308.
Lloyd V. Tliompson (5 111. App. 90),
339.
Lobdell V. Lobdell (36 N. Y. 337),
309.
Locke V. Moulton (96 Cal. 21), 223.
Locke V. Railroad Co, (46 Iowa, 112),
38a,
Locke V. Rowell (47 N. H. 461), 217.
Lockwood V, Lockwood (51 Hun,
337), 150.
Lockwood V. Ros'e (135 Ind. 588),
373.
Loder v, Whelpley (HI N. Y. 245),
169, 178, 309,
Loeb V. Richardson (74 Ala. 311),
237.
Loeffner v. State (10 Ohio St. 599),
231.
Loftus V. Maloney (89 Va. 576; 16 S.
B. Rep. 749), 208.
Logan V. United States (144 U. S.
263; 13 S. Ct. 617), 307, 320.
Logansport v. McMillen (49 Ind.
495), 199.
Lohman v. State (81 Ind. 151), 237.
Lohman v. Stocke (94 Mo. 672), 120.
Lohmer v. Insurance Co. (121 Mass,
439), 73a.
Lbhr V, People (133 111, 504), 351.
ex
TABLE OF OASES.
Eeferences are to sections.
Lonergan v. Whitehead (10 Watts,
Pa., 349), 60.
Long V. Armsby Co. (43 Mo. App.
253), 316.
Long V. Campbell (37 W. Va. 665),
24, 129.
Long V. Drew (114 Mass. 77), 136.
Long V. Georgia, etc. Co. (82 Ga.
628), 107.
Longv. Hart well (34 N. J. L. 110),
368.
Long V. Johnson (24 N. H. 302), 205.
Long V. Kee (44 La. Ann. 309 ; 10 S.
Rep. 854), 83.
Long V. Langsdale (56 Arli. 339), 380.
Long V. Little (119 III. 600), 139.
Long V. Long (44 Mo. App. 141), 220.
Long V. Mast (11 Pa. St. 189), 231.
Long V. Milford (137 Pa. St. 122), 11.
Long V. People (34 III. App. 481),
383.
Long V, People (135 111. 535), 383.
Long V. State (86 Ala. 36), 93, 333.
Long V. Straus (134 Ind. 84; 34 N. E.
Rep. 664), 8, 330.
Longenecker v. Hyde (6 Binn., Pa.,
1), 74.
Longes v. Kennedy (3 Bibb, Ky.,
607), 237.
Longnecker v. Shields (1 Colo. 364 ;
38 Pao. Rep. 059), 283.
Loomis V. Insurance Co. (81 Wis.
366; 51 N. W. Rep. 561), 300.
Loomis V. Loomis (26 Vt. 198), 69.
Loomis V. Mowry (8 Hun, 311), 199.
Loomis V. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. (1.09
Mass. 39; 34 N. E. Rep. 30), 73a,
350.
Tjoomis V. Pingree (43 Me. 399), 330.
Loomis V. Wadhara (8 Gray, Mass.,
557), 38.
Looney v. Rankin (15 Greg. 617), 209.
Lord V. Bigelow (124 Mass. 185), 74.
Lord V. Colvin (2 De G., M. & G.),
143.
Lord V. Lord (58 N. H. 7), 131.
Lord Melville's Case (29 How. St.
Trials, 083), 353.
Lord Stafford's Case (7 How. St. Tr,
1527), 883.
Loring v. Palmer (118 U. S. 331), 246.
Loring v. Steineman (1 Mete, Mass.,
304), 233.
Lorrillard v. Clyde (55 N. Y. Super.
Ct. 308), 154.
Lott V. King (79 Tex. 292), 33, 859.
Lotto V. Davenport (50 Minn. 99_; 52
N. W. Rep. 130), 349, 250.
Lotz V. Scott (103 Ind. 155), 198.
Loud V. Merrill (45 Me. 516), 330.
Loughry v. Wait (34 111. App. 523),
124.
Louis V. Easton (50 Ala. 470), 308.
Louisville v. Board (83 Ky. 219), 232.
Louisville C. Jour. v. Weaver (Ky,,
1892, 17 S. W. Rep. 1018), 249.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Atkins (2 Lea,
Tenn., 248), 133.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Barker (Ala. ,
1893, 10 S. Rep. 453), 343.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Berry (Ind ,
1891, 85 N. E. Rep. 565), 82.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. ChafBc (84 Ga.
519), 186.
Louisville, etc. Co. t. Crayton (69
Miss. 152), 374, 378.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Donegan(lll
Ind. 179), 198.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Dulavey (43
111. App. 397), 33.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Falvey (104
Ind. 409, 416), 52, 192.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Foley (Ky,,
1893, 31 S. W. Rep. 866), 73a.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Hays (11 Tenn.
383), 239.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Hurt (Ala.,
1893, 13 S. Rep. 830), 18, 348.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Kenley (Tenn.,
1893, 31 S. W. Rep. 326), 380.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Neafus (Ky.,
1893, 18 S. W. Rep. 1030), 208.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Orr(10S. Rep.
167; 94 Ala. 602), 232.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Parish (Ind.,
1893, 33 N. E. Rep. 122), 148.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXI
Beferences are to sections.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Shirea (108 III,
617), 143a.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Stommel (120
Ind. 35), 11.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Wood (113 Ind.
548), 345.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Wright (115
Ind. 378), 76.
Louisville, N. A. etc. Co. v. Fraw-
ley (110 Ind. 26), 352.
Lou man v. Aubrey (72 111. 619), 308.
Love V. Dickinson (85 N. C. 5), 252.
Love V. McAlister (42 Ark. 183), 356.
Lovejoy v. Hart (Minn., 1894, 57 N.
W. Rep. 57), 186.
Lovejoy v. Lovett (124 Mass. 2i0),
220, 222.
Lovelock V. Gregg (14 Colo. 53), 60.
Lovett V. State (30 Fla. 142), 6, 234.
Lovett V. State (60 Ga. 237), 93.
Loving V. Warren Co, (14 Bush, Ky.,
316), 142.
Low V. Burrows (12 Cal. 181), 148.
Low v. Conn. etc. R. Co. (45 N. H.
370), 73(1.
Low V, Greenwood (30 111. App. 184),
11.
Low V. Hanson (72 Me. 104), 240.
Low V. Perkins (10 Vt. 533), 72.
Low's Case (4 Me. 439), 176.
Low's Estate (Myrick's Prob., Cal.,
143), 168.
Lowder v. Schluter (78 Tex. 103), 53.
Lowdermilk v. Bostick(98 N. C. 299),
205.
Lowe V. Bliss (24 111. 168), 237.
Lowe V. Thompson (86 Ind. 503), 211.
Lowell V. Payne (30 La. Ann. 511),
250.
Lowenstein, In re (2 Misc. Rep. 323),
178.
Lower V. Conyers (7 Cow., N. Y.,
263), 20.-
Loweryv. Caldwell (139 Mass. 88),
150a.
Lowman v. State (81 Ind. 151), 237.
Lowry v. Harris (12 Minn. 255), 32.
;73a.
Lowther v. State (4 Ohio Cir. Ct. R.
522), 167.
Lucas V. Brooks (18 Wall., U. S.,
436), 166.
Lucas V. De Cour (1 M. & S. 249),
68.
Lucas V. Hunt (91 Ky, 279; 15 S. W.
Rep. 781), 250.
Lucas V. State (27 Tex. App. 323),
343.
Luce V. Doroh. M. F. 1. Co. (105 Mass.
497), 200.
Lucker v. Cora. (4 Bush, Ky., 440),
242.
Luco V. United States (33 How. 541),
38a.
Lucre v. State (7 Baxter, Tenn., 148),
323.
Ludlow V. Van Rensselaer (1 Johns.
95), 242.
Ludlow V. Warshing (108 N. Y. 520),
141.
Luke T. Calhoun Co. (53 Ala. 115), i
38a, 241.
Luker v. Com. (Ky., 1887, 5 S. W.
Rep. 354), 101, 103.
Lum V. Scarborough (Tex., 1893, 24
S. W. Rep. 846), 107.
Lumo V. Scott (44 Minn. 110), 154.
Lumpkin v. State (68 Ala. 56), 324.
Lunay v. Vantyne (40 Vt. 501), 71.
Lundas v. Lansing (75 Mich. 502),
52.
Lunday v. Thomas (26 Ga. 538), 208.
Lurren v. Crawford (4 S. & R. 3, 5),
60.
Lursher v. Com. (26 Gratt. 963), 101.
Lusk V. Parsons (39 111. App. 330),
366. •
Lutes v, Reed (138 Pa. St. 191), 336.
Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Ward (90 111.
5), 73a.
Lyddy's Will, In re (3 N. Y. S. 636),.
188.
Lyerly v. Wheeler (13 Ired., N. C,
290), 226, 304.
Lyles V. Com. (88 Va. 396; 13 S. E.
Rep. 802), 351.
CXll
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
Lyman v. Philadelphia (56 Pa. St.
488), 349.
, Lyman v. State (14 Allen, Mass.,
329), 200.
Lynch v. Doran (95 Mich. 395 ; 54 N.
W. Rep. 882), 248.
Lynch v. Grayson (N. M., 1893, 32
Pac. Rep. 149), 380.
Lynch v. Livingston (6 N. Y. 433),
135.
Lynch v. Peabody (13? Mass. 93), 7.
Lynde v. Judd (3 Day, Conn., 499),
146.
Lynn v. Lyerle (113 111. 134), 171.
Lynn v. Morse (76 Iowa, 665), 130.
Lyon V. Batz (43 Mo. App, 606), 366.
Lyon V. Lyman (9 Conn. 55), 131,
139a, 140.
Lyon V. Marine (55 Fed. Rep. 964),
241.
Lyon V. Miller (34 Pa. St. 392), 205.
Lyon V. Prouty (154 Mass. 488),, 168.
Lyons V. Holmes (U S. C. 439), 131.
Lyons v. People (137 111. 603), 6.
Lyons v. Pyatt (N. J. L., 1893, 36
Atl. Rep. 334), 67.
Lytle V. Bond (40 Vt. 618), 309.
Lyts V. Keevy (5 Wash. St. 606), 11,
186.
M.
Mach. Co. V. Barry (3 Misc. Rep.
. 264), 138.
Mack V. Bensley (63 Wis. 80), 217.
Mackey v. Armstrong (84 Tex. 159 ;
19 S. W. Rep. 463), 371.
Mackey v. Baltimore, etc. Co. (19 D.
C. 283), 148.
Mackin v. O'Brien (33 111. 474), 79.
MacCready v. Sohenok (41 La. Ann.
456), 73.
MacDonough v. Knight (35 Q. B. D.
1), 145.
Macy V. Williams (55 Hun, 489), 346.
Maddox v. Maddox (114 Mo. 35; 21
S. W. Rep. 499), 348.
Magee v. People (139 111. 138; 28 N.
E. Rep. 1Q7T), 353.
Magee v. Scott (9 Cush., Mass., 150),
229.
Magee v. Scott (33 Pa. St. 589), 147.
Magee v. Troy (1 N. Y. S. 24; 48
Hun, 383), 8.
Magers v. Dunlap (39 111. App. 618),
128.
Magie v. Ghadoine (30 Tex. 644), 238.
Magie v. Herman (50 Minn. 434; 53
N. W. Rep. 909), 33.
Magnay v. Burt (5 Q. B. 394), 281.
Magness v. Arnold (31 Ark. 103), 136.
Magoun v. N. E. Ins. Cc». (1 Story,
157), 158.
Mahan v. McMahan (13 Pa. St. 376),
263.
Mahaney v. McLean (36 Minn. 415),
73a.
Mahaney v. Railway (108 Mo. 191;
18 S. W. Rep. 895), 8.
Maher v. People (10 Mich. 213), 384.
Mahon v. Mahon (3 Irish Eq. 440),
387.
Mahony v. Aurecocha (51 Cal. 439),
337.
Mahurin v. Bickford (5 N. H. 9),
150a.
Maier v. State (Tex., 1893, 31 S. W.
Rep. 974), 241.
Mainard v. Beider (3 Ind. App. 115;
28 N. E. Rep. 196), 168.
Maine V. People (9 Hun, 113), 103.
Maine v. Ryder (84 Pa. St. 217), 131.
Mair 'v. Beck (3 Atl. Rep. 318, Pa.
St., 1886), 69.
Maitland v. Bank (40 Md. 540), 350.
Maley v. Shattuck (8 Cranch, 488),
158.
Malachi v. State (89 Ala. 134), 227.
Mallory v. Ohio Farm. Ins. Co. (ftO
Mich. 112), 140.
Malloy V. Bruden (8g N. G. 251),
336.
Malone v. Gates (66 Tex. 23), 117.
Maloney v. Duff (73 Md. 288), 350.
Maltby v. Kirkland (48 Fed. Rep.
760), 73a.
Mamlotk v. White (20 Cal. 598), 68.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXlll
Keferenoes are to sections.
Manchester v. Brodaer (107 N. Y.
849), 209.
Manchester v. Manchester (34 Vt.
649), 1B6,
Manchester v. Moore (19 N. H. 564),
302.-
Mandeville v. Parker (31 N. J. Eq.
a42), 369.
Maness v. Henry (96 Ala. 454; 11 S.
Rep. 470), 138.
Mangum v. Webster (7 Gill, 78), 344.
Manistee Bank v. Sprague (64 Mich.
59), 76.
Mankin v. Emmons (47 Mo. 306), 134.
Manley v. Staples (65 Vt. 370; 36
Atl. Rep. 630), 331.
Mann v. Godbold (3 Ring. 293), 30.
Mann v. Mann (1 Johns. Ch. 231),
331.
Mann v. Mann (14 Johns. 1), 314.
Mann v. State (46 Ind. 383), 134.
Manning v. Hancock Mut. Life Ins.
Co. (100 U. S. 698), 326.
Manning v. Purcell (34 L, J. Ch.
533), 150.
Mansfield v. Rab (31 N. Y, S. 65; 66
Hun, 631), 380.
Mansfield v. Sherwin (181 Me. 365),
233.
Manson v. Lanley (84, Me. 389), 61.
Mantonya v. Hierter (35 111. App. 27),
383.
Manufg. Ace. Indemnity Co. v. Dor-
gan(58 Fed. Rep. 945), 186, 193,
193.
Many v. Titcomb (19 Ind. 136), 343.
Mapes V. Seales (37 Tex. 345), 105,
139a.
Maples V. State (3 Heisk. 408), 90.
Mapp V. Phillips (32 Gu. 73), 73o.
Marabitti v. Bagolan (31 Oreg. 299),
380.
Marable v. Meyer (78 Ga. 60). 138.
Marcey v. Shultz (39 N. Y. 540),
337.
March v. State (44 Tex. 64), 343.
Marcum V. Com. (Ky., 1890, 1 S. W.
Rep, 737), 103.
Marcy v. Amazeen (61 N. H. 133),
309.
Marcy v. Barnes (16 Gray, 163), 38a.
Mariner v. Saunders (5 Gilm., 111.,
113), 130.
Mark v. Ha.stings (Ala,, 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 297), 51.
Markel v. Evans (47 Ind. 336), 232.
Markleyv. Hull (49 N. W. Rep. 1050;
51 Iowa, 109), 380.
Marks v. Beifus (35 Q. B. Div. 494),
175.
Marks v. Lahee (3 Bing. N. C, 408),
117.
Marks v. Societie (23 Civ. Pro. Rep.
301), 385.
Mai-latt V. Warwick (18 N. J. Eq.
108), 303.
Marler s. State (67 Ala. 55), 131.
Marmaduke, Ex parte (91 Mo. 328,
351), 288.
Marmet v. Archibald (37 W. Va.
778), 282.
Mars V. Virginia Home Ins. Co. (17
S. C. 514), 73a.
Marse v. Rice (Neb., 1893, 54 K W.
Rep. 308), 211.
Marsh v. Bellew (45 Wis. 89), 314.
Marsh v. Colnett (2 Esp. 665), 107.
Marsh v. Cramer (Colo., 1891, 37Pac.
Rep. 109), 350.
Marsh v. Davis (24 Vt. 363), 56.
Marsh v. Hand (35 Md. 123), 30.
Marsh v. Jones (31 Vt. 378), 124
Marsh v. Mitchell (36 N. J. Eq. 497),
136, 137.
Marsh v. Pier (4 Rawle, 388, 289),
160.
Marsh v. Potter (30 Barb., N. Y ,
506), 166.
Marshal v. Thompson (39 Minn, 187),
223.
Marshal v. Yougler (10 S. & R. 161),
128.
Marshall v. Adams (11 111. 37), 76.
Marshall v. Brown (50 Mich. 148),
188.
Marshall v. Cliff (4 Camp. 133), 74.
CXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Marshall v. Green (33 L. T. Rep.,
N. S., 404), 263.
Marshall v. Hancock (80 Cal. 83), 120,
123.
Marshall v. Harkensoii (84 Iowa,
117; SON. W. Rep. 559), 368.
Marshall v. Peck (91 111. 187), 262,
308.
Marshall v. State (31 Tex. 471), 23.
Mnrshall v. State (5 Tex. App. 273),
89.
Martin v. Ashland Mill Co. (49 Mo.
27), 316.
Martin V. Aulttnan (80 "Wis. 150), 240.
Martin v. Bowie (37 S. C. 102 ; 15 S.
E. Rep. 736), 33, 138.
Martin v. Clarke (8 R. I. 389), 208.
Martin v. Cope (3 Abb. Dec. 183),
124.
Martin v. Insurance Co. (Iowa, 1893,
52 N. W. Rep. 534), 73a, 79.
Martin v. Morris (63 Wis. 418), 268.
Martin v. Martin (1 Misc. Rep. 181),
80.
T«artin v. Martin (118 Ind. 227), 308.
Martin v. Mott (12 Wheat. 19), 233.
Martin v. Root (17 Mass. 332), 69.
Martin V. Rutt (127 Pa. St. 380), 71.
Martin v. State (38 Ala. 71), 281.
Martin v. State (90 Ala. 603 ; 8 S.
Rep. 858), 93.
Martin v. State (28 Tex. App. 364),
33.
Martin v. State (21 Tex. App. 1), 226.
Martin v. Stubbings (136 111. 387),
308.
Martin v. Thayer (37 W. Va. 38), 233.
Martin v. Victor, etc. Co. (19 Nev.
180), 8.
Martindale v. FoUett (1 N. H. 95),
128.
Marts V. State (26 Ohio St. 162), 10.
Marx V. McGlynn (88 N. Y. 357), 51.
Marx V. Strauss (90 Ala. 453), 350.
Marzetti v. Da Jouffroy (1 Dowl.
41), 358.
Mask V. Buffalo (N. Y., 1893, 13 N.
E, Rep. 351), 191.
Mask V. State (33 Mise. 405), 69.
Mason v. Atl, Ave. R. E. Co. (4
Misc. Rep. 291), 13.
Mason v. Eldred (6 Wall. 235), 154.
Mason v. Fuller (45 Vt. 39)^ 53.
Mason v. Lawrason (1 Cranch, 190),
148.
Mason v. Ryus (36 Kan. 464), 221.
Mason v. Seitz (36 Ind. 516), 363.
Mason v. State (30 S. W. Rep. 504;
31 Tex. Crim. App. 308), 9.
Massey v. Colville (45 N, J. L. 119),
385.
Massy v. Farmers' Bank (104 III.
337), 139a.
Masters v. Marsh (19 Neb. 458), 363.
Masters v. Troy (oO Hun, 485), 8.
Masterson v. Boyce (6 N. Y. S. 65 ; 58
Hun, 630), 171.
Masterson v. Little (73 Tex. 682),
151.
Masterson v. Mathews (60 Ala. 360),
344.
Masterson v. Todd (Tex., 1893, 24 S.
W. Rep. 683), 106.
Matherly v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 19 S.
W. Rep. 977), 102.
Mathes v. Robinson (8 Met. 269), 60.
Mathews v. Alsworth (La., 1893, 13
S. Rep. 578), 83.
Mathews v. Coalter (9 Mo. 705), 139.
Mathews v. Colburn (1 Strobh. 258),
123.
Mathews v. Culbertson (83 Iowa.
434; 50 N. W. Rep. 201), 83.
Mathews v. Hoagland (48 N. J. Eq.
455), 169, 173, 174.
Mathews v. Mathews (53 Hun, 244 ;
6 N. Y. S. 589), 368.
Mathews v. Morgan (Iowa, 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 478), 83.
Mathews v. Tappan (6 Mo. 276), 19.
Mathews v. Ward (10 Gill & J. 143),
233.
Mathews, Adm'r, v. Furness (91 Ala.
157), 248.
Mathews' Estate (4 Am, Law Jour.
356), 169.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXV
Heferences are to sections.
Mathews' Estate (5 Pa. L. J. Rep.
149), 173.
Matley v. Long (71 Md. 585), 317.
Matson v. Frazer (48 Mo. App. 303),
13, 363.
Mattes V. Frankel (65 Hun, 203),
84.
Matteson v. N. Y. etc. R. Co. (35
N. Y. 487; 63 Barb., N. Y., 364),
53, 193, 193.
Mattocks V. Lj-man (18 Vt. 98), 80.
Mattocks V. Wheaton (10 Vt. 493),
376.
Mattoon v. Young (45 N. Y. 696),
308.
Mattox V. United States (146 U. S.
140), 103.
Mauer v. Ferguson (17 N, Y. S. 349),
186.
Maughan v. Burns (36 Atl. Rep. 583),
199.
Maurice v. Warden (57 Md. 510; 54
Md. 233), 143, 363.
Mauro v. Piatt (62 111. 450), 81.
Maury v. Van Armin (1 Hill.N. Y.,
370), 357.
Maxey v. Strong (53 Mo. 380), 69.
Maxfield v. Patchen (39 111. 39), 323.
Maxwell v. Harrison (8 Ga. 61), 368.
May V. Boston (158 Mass. 31 ; 33 N.
E. Rep. 903), 8.
May V. Little (3 Ired. L., N. C, 27),
71.
May V. People (8 Colo. 810), 10.
May V. Prendergast (13 Pa. Co. Ct.
R. 330), 363.
May V. Shumway (16 Gray, 86), 377.
May V State (90 Ga. 793 ; 17 S. E.
Rep. 108), 9.
Maye v. Bradlee (137 Mass. 414), 51.
Maye v. Friednaan (69 N. Y. 608),
263.
Mayer v. Stone (31 Neb. 717), 850.
Mayes r. State (64 Miss. 339), 57.
Maynard v. Cedar County (51 Iowa,
481), 277.
Maynard v, Frederick (7 Cush. 247),
315.
Maynard v. Maynard (10 Mass. 456),
229.
Mayo V. Wright (63 Mich. 40), 52.
Mayor v. Brooklyn F. I. Co. (3 Abb.
App. Dec. 351), 205,
Mayor v. Butler (1 Barb. 335), 314.
Mays V. Deaver (1 Iowa, 360), 80.
McAdam v. State (5 S. W. Rep. 836,
Tenn., 1886), 283.
McAdory v. State (62 Ala. 154), 90,
95.
McAfee v. Arline (83 Ga. 645), 210.
McAleer v. McMurray (58 Pa. St.
120), 5.
McAnuIty's Appeal (135 Pa. St. 210),
60.
McBee v. Bowman (89 Tenn. 183),
249.
McBride v. Raihoad Co. (60 Hun,
585), 380.
McBride v. Wallace (63 Mich. 451),
335.
McCabe v. Com. (Pa., 1887, 8 Atl.
Rep. 45), 91.
McCabe v. Raney (33 Ind. 309), 84.
McCafferty v. Heritage (5 Houst.,
Del., 320), 140.
McCall V. Moscowitz (14 Dalv, 10),
37.
McCall V. United States (1 Dak. 321-
328), 135.
McCalla v. State (66 Ga. 346), 324.
McCandless v. Warner (26 W. Va.
754), 246.
McCarlin v. Traphagan (45 N. J. Eq.
265), 308.
McCarney v. People (83 N. Y. 408), 3.
McCarthey v. Gallegher (4 Misc. Rep.
188), 7.
McCarthy, In re (59 Hun, 636), 168,
171, 174.
McCarthy, In re (65 Hun, 624), 309.
McCarthy v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 20
S. W. Rep. 239), 188.
MoCarty v. Leary (118 Mass. 509). 10.
McCarty v. People (51 111. 331), 10.
McCaskin v. Lake Shore R. R. Co.
(93 Mich. 553), 20.
CXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferences are to sections.
McOaskle v. Amarine (12 Ala. 17),
133.
McOauslaud v. Fleming (63 Pa. St.
36), 115.
McClackey v. State (5 Tex. App.
320), 197.
McClafferty v. Phelps (151 Pa. St. 86),
51.
McCIain v. Cam. (110 Pa. St. 363,
209), 11, 89, 91, 333.
MoClaine v. People (1 Atl. Rep. 45;
110 Pa. St. 363), 33 4a.
Mc("!laskey v. Barr (47 Fed. Rep.
363), 7, 107, 337.
McClaskey v. State (Tex., 1893, 13
S. W. Rep. 999), 6.
McClelJaii v..McClellaii (65 Me. 500),
169.
McCiellan v. Osborne (51 Me. 118), 24.
McClelland v. McClelland (42 Mo.
App. 33), 239.
McClelland v. Rush (11 Pa. Co. Ct.
R. 188), 305.
McCleneghan v. Reid (34 Neb. 473;
51 N. W. Rep. 1037), 7.
McCloi-y V. Wright (10 Ir. Law, 514),
334.
McCloskey v. McCorniick (44 111. 336),
323.
McClure v. Campbell (25 Neb. 57 ; 40
' N. W. Rep. 595 >, 130.
McClure v. Com. (81 Ky. 448), 334.
McClusky Y. Klosterman (20 Oreg.
108; 25 Pac. Rep. 366), 216.
McCollum V. State (14 S. W. Rep.
1020; 39 Tex. App. 163), 93.
McComb V. Insurance Co. (48 N. W.
Rep. 1038; 83 Iowa, 247), 376.
McConnell v. Bondry (4 T. B. Men.
394), 239.
McConnell v. Carey (48 Pa. St. 430),
363.
McConnell v. Kitchens (30 S. C. 430),
263.
McConnell v. McConnell (Neb., 1893,
55 N. W. Rep. 293), 249.
McConnell v. State (Tex., 1893, IS
S. W. Rep. 645), 324.
McCorkle v. Doby (1 Strobh., S. C,
396), 68.
McCormiok v. Fitzmorris (39 Mo. 34),
128, 129.
McCorniick v. Garrett (5DeG., M. &
G. 378), 143.
McCormick H. Co. v. Burandt (20
N. E. Rep. 588; 130 111. 170), 24.
McCormick M: Co. v. Burandt (37
111. App. 588), 188.
McCormick M. Co. v. Snell (23 111.
App. 79), 76.
McCoy V. Galloway (3 Ohio, 283),
115.
McCoy V. New York (46 Hun, 208),
230.
McCoy V. Tucker (121 Ind. 292), 8,
McCrae v. Robinson (2 Murph., N. C,
137), 79.
MeCraveu v. McGuire (23 Miss. 100),
135.
McCrawey v. Remsen (19 Ala. 430),
82.
McCrea V. Purmort(16 Wend., N. Y.,
473; 30 Am. Deo. 103), 208.
McCreary v. Turk (29 Ala. 244), 30.
McCrillis v. Millard (17 R. I. 724),
01.
McCulloch V. Dobson (30 N. E. Rep.
641; 133 N. Y. 114), 8.
McCullough V. Ashbridge (155 Pa.
St. 166), 316.
McCully V. Malcolm (9 Humph.,
Tenn., 187), 133.
McCune v. McCune (29 Mo. 117), 67.
McDaniel v. Needham (61 Tex. 269),
136.
McDaniel v. King (90 N. C. 597), 222.
McDaniel v. State (16 Mass. 401), 10.
McDaniel v. State (8 Sm. & M. 401),
102.
McDaniel V. State (Ala., 1883, 12 S.
Rep. 341), 346.
McDaniel v. State (6 Ala. 366), 249.
McDaniell v. State (76 Ala. 1), 234,
241.
McDevmaid v. Russell (41 111. 490),
357.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXVU
References are to sections.
McDerraot v. U. S. Ins. Co. (3 S. &
R., Pa., 604), 321.
McDermot v. Hannibal, etc. Co. (73
Mo. 516), 73a.
MoDermott v. Barnum (19 Mo. 304),
147.
MoDermott v. Chicago, etc. Co.
(Wis., 1893, 55 N. W. Rep. 79),
875.
McDermott v. McCormack (4 Harr.,
Del., 543), 181.
McDonald v. Carnes (90 Ala. 147),
57.
McDonald v. Caryell (Ind., 1893, 34
N. E. Rep. 7), 377.
McDonald v. Dana (154 Mass. 152),
323.
McDonald v. Eggleston (36 Vt. 154),
69.
McDonald v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
(Iowa, 1893, 55 N. W. Rep. 103),
333.
McDonald v. Mallory (77 N. Y. 547),
330.
McDonald v. State (80 Wis. 407), 340.
McDonough v. Loughlin (20 Barb.
838), 269.
McDowell V. Thomas (4 Neb. 542), 77.
McDuffie V. State (Ga., 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 505), 6.
McElreath v. Middleton (14 S. E.
Rep. 906; 89 Ga. 356), 74.
McElroy v. Braden (153 Pa. St. 78),
363.
JIcElvoy V. Ludlum (33 N. J. Eq.
838), 67, 76.
McElwee v. Trowbridge <68 Hun,
38), 7Ba, 75.
McEwen v. Biglow (40 Mich. 315).
188.
McEwen v. Portland (1 Greg. 300),
234.
McFadden v. Ellmaker (53 Cal. 348),
66, 70.
McFadden v. Railway Co. (93 Mo.
318), 310.
McFadden v. Reynolds (Pa., 1887,
11 Atl. Rep. 6a8), 354a.
McFadden v. State (38 Tex. App.
341), 346.
McFarland v. Ford (33 111. App. l1S),
347.
McGarvey v. Ford (N. M., 37 Pac.
Rep. 415), 233.
McGaun v. Hamilton (53 Conn. 69),
198.
McGee v. State (16 S. W. Rep. 423 ;
29 Tex. App. 596), 320.
McGee v. Wells (37 S. C. 365; 16 S.
E. Rep. 89), 11.
McGennis v. Allison (10 Serg. & R.,
Pa., 197), 138.
McGeorge v. Hoffman (19 Atl. Rep.
413; 133 Pa. St. 381), 326.
McGerr v. Sell (60 Ind. 249), 83.
McGill V. Hawks (95 Mich. 153; 54
N. W. Rep. 707), 3d0.
McGinnis v. State (34 Ind. 500), 244.
McGinnis v. State ("Wyo., 1893, 31
Pac. Rep. 978), 306.
McGoon V. Irvin (1 Pinney, Wis.,
526), 53.
McGooney v. State (20 Ohio St. 93),
205.
McGowen v. Araer. Press. Tan Bark
(121 U. S. 57.5), 199.
McGrath v. Mongels (20 N., Y. S.
869), 209.
McGrath v. Seagrave (4 Allen, 443),
147.
McGravy t. Durnell (134 111. 367),
159.
McGraw v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 30 S.
W. Rep. 879), 9, 69.
McGregor V. Brown (10 N. Y. 117).
363.
MoGrew T. M. Pac. R. R. Co. (109
Mo. 583; 9 S. W. Rep. 53), 7.
McGuire v. Manuf. Co. (156 Mass.
334), 339.
McGuire v. People (44 Mich. 286),
319.
McGuire v. Railroad Co. (43 Mo.
App. 354), 11.
McGuire v. Stevens (43 Miss. 474),
309.
CXVUl
TABLE OF OASES.
Eeferences are to sections.
McGuirk v. Mut. L, Ins. Co. (66 Hun,
628), 58, 144.
McHugh V. Railroad Co. (65 Hun,
619), 380.
Mclntire v. Costello (6 N. Y. S. 397 ;
03 Hun, 636), 71.
Mclntire v. Mancius (16 Johns. 592),
354.
Mclntire v. Oliver (2 Hawks, 209),
69.
Mclntire v. Velte (153 Pa. St. 350),
128.
Mcintosh V. Lee (57 Iowa, 356), 237.
Mcintosh V. Mcintosh (79 Mich. 198 ;
44 N. W. Eep. 592), 330.
Mclvor V. Humble (19 East, 169),
144.
McKay v. Lasher (42 Hun, 370), 140.
McKay v. Russell (3 Wasli. St. 378), 9.
McKee v. Hamilton (33 Ohio St. 7),
67, 68.
McKee v. State (82 Ala. 33), 6.
McKeefiey v. ConnellsvilleCoke Co.
(56 Fed. Rep. 470), 216.
McKelvey v. Railway Co. (39 W. Va.
500), 193.
McKenzie v, Oregon Imp. Co. (5
Wash. St. 409), 370.
McKenzie v. State (24 Ark. 636), 306,
323.
McKeon v. Barnes (108 Mass. 344),
189.
McKesson v. Sherman (51 Wis. 303),
208.
McKiesick v. State (26 Tex. 673),
343.
McKinney v. State (3 Wyo. 719), 283.
McKinney v. State (Fia., 1893, 11 S.
Rep. 733), 2U.
McKinnie v. Harvey (38 Minn. 18),
311.
McLain v. Com. (99 Pa. St. 86), 123,
. 193.
McLain v. State (Neb., 1885, 7 Crim.
L. Mag. 199), 239.
McLane v. Piaggo (3 S. Rep. 823 ; 34
Fia. 71), 279.
McLane v. Slate (30 Tex. App. 483), 8.
McLaughlin v. Gilmore (1 111. App.
563), 168.
McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (91 Pa.
St. 462), 71.
McLellou V. Cox (36 Me. 95), 67.
McLellon v. Crofton (6 Greenl. 307),
60.
McLeod V. Ginter (80 Ky. 403), 56.
McLeod V. Lee (17 Nev. 103), 50.
McLeod V. Railway Co. (71 Iowa,
138), 343.
McLeod V. Skiles (81 Mo. 595), 213.
McLeod V. State (31 Tex. Crim. Rep.
331), 197, 249.
McLeon v. State (16 Ala. 673), 330.
McManus v. Freeman (3 Pa. Dist. R.
144), 168.
McManuss v. London(Minn., 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 139), 216.
McMasters' Appeal (55 N. W. Rep.
149, Wis., 1893), 169.
McMasters v. Blaik (29 Pa. St. 298),
331.
McMeen v. Com. (114 Pa. St. 300), 6.
McMicken v. Com. (58 Pa. St. 313),
205.
McMillan v. McDill (110 111. 47), 67.
McMuUen v. Egan (31 W. Va. 214),
137.
McMuUin v. Carsen (48 Kan. 363; 39
Pac. Rep. 317), 11.
McMurrin v. Rigby (80 Iowa, 332), 52.
McNair v. Com. (36 Pa. St. 388), 139,
139a.
McNamara v. Corp. of New Melle-
ray (Iowa, 1893, 55 N. W. Rep.
333), 370.
McNamara v. Logan (Ala.,. 1894, 14
S. Eep. 175), 198.
McNanie v. Morland (26 Iowa, 96),
236.
McNeale v. Kraun (21 Oreg. 218),
361.
McNear v. McComber (18 Iowa, 7),
206.
McNeely v. Duff (50 Kan. 488), 337.
McNerney v. Reading (1.50 Pa. St.
611; 30 W. N. C. 534), 348.,
TABLE OF CASES.
CXIX
EefereQoes are to sections.
McNichols V. Pac. Ex. Co. (12 Mo.
App. 401), 237.
McNight V. Bell (26 W. N. C. 28),
154.
McNutt V. MoNutt (116 Ind. 545), 376.
McPherson v. Bridge CoJ (20 Oreg.
486; 26 Pac. Eep. 560), 18.
McPherson v. Seguine (3 Dev., N.
C, 154), 262.
McPherson v. Weston (85 Cal. 90),
205.
McQueen v. People's Nat. Bank (111
N. C. 509), 283.
McQueen v. State (94 Ala. 50 ; 10 S.
Rep. 433), 89, 101.
McRae v. State (71 Ga. 96), 67, 70.
McRea v. Insurance Bank (16 Ala.
755), 74.
McReynolds v. Railroad Co. (106 111.
153), 199.
McShane v. Bank (73 Md. 135), 73.
McShane V. Braender (66 How. Pr.,
N. Y., 294), 253.
McSweeney v. McMillan (96 Ind.
298), 70.
McTyler v. State (Ga., 1893, 18 S. E.
Eep. 140), 350.
McVey v. Durkin (136 Pa. St. 418),
58.
McWhirter v. Allen (1 Tex. Civ.
App. 649), 105.
Meacham v. Meaoham (Tenn., 1893,
19 S. W. Rep. 757), 363.
Mead v. Black (32 Wis. 232), 76.
Mead v. Husted (52 Conn. 56), 6.
Mead v. N. W. Ins. Co. (3 Selden, 7
N. Y., 530), 198.
Mead v. Parker (111 N. Y. 259), 315.
Mead v. Parker (115 Mass. 413), 220.
Meade v. Carolina Bank (36 S. C.
608), 186.
Meagley v. Hoyt (125 N. Y. 771),
229.
Mealer v. State (32 Tex. Crini. Rep.
103; 23 S.W. Rep. 142), 311, 349.
Means v. Kimball (35 Neb. 093), 130.
Means v. Means (7 Rich., S. C, 533),
139.
Mears v. Cornwell (73 Mich. 78), 346.
Mechanics' Bank v. Gibson (7 Wend.
460), 237.
Mechanics' Bank v. Levy (3 Paige,
N. Y., 606), 305.
Mechanics' Bank v. Lynn (1 Pet.,
U. S., 376), 305.
Mech. & Trad. Nat. Bank v. Wynant
(49 Hun, 607), 380.
Meconce v. Mower (7 Wend. 315),
73a.
Medlin v. Steele (75 N. C. 154), 263.
Medlin v. Wilkins (1 Tex. Civ. App.
465), 374.
Medomack v. Curtis (34 Me. 36). 215.
Meegan v. Boyle (19 How., U. S.,
130), 146.
Meeker v. Meeker (74 Iowa, 352 ; 37
N. W. Eep. 773), 197.
Meekins v. Smith (1 H. Bl. 636), 386.
Meely Hee v. Hudson (21 S. W. Rep.
175), 241.
Meentz v. Eeiken (43 111. App. 17),
250, 380.
Meeteer v. Man. R. E. Co. (63 Hun,
533), 307.
Mehan v. State (7 Wis. 670), 350.
Meier v. Morgan (82 Wis. 289), 346.
Meikel v. Savings Institution (36 Ind.
355), 128.
Meiss V. GUI (44 Ohio St. 358), 160.
Meixell v. Feezor (43 111. App. 180),
335.
Melcher v. Derkum (44 Mo. App.
650), 79.
Melcher v. Flanders (40 N. H. 139),
138.
Melins v. Houston (41 Miss. 59), 148.
Mellen, In re (63 Hun, 633), 17^,
174.
Mellon V. Reed (114 Pa. St. 647), 262.
Mellor V. Missouri P. E. Co. (105
Mo. 455; 16 S. W. Eep. 849),
178.
Melvin v. BuUard (35 Vt. 368), 8.
Melvin v. Whiting (7 Pick. 79), 133.
Melvin v. Whiting (13 Pick. 190),
276.
cxx
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferenoes are to sections.
Memphis, etc. Co. v. Benson (1 Pick.
627), .SO, 33.
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Cock (64
Miss. 713), 73a.
Mendenhall v. Parish (8 Jones' L
108), 208.
Mentze v. Tuteur (77 Wis. 236; 46
N. W. Rep. 123). 349.
MA-cer v. Vose (40 N. Y. Super. Ct.
218), 188, 199.
Mei-cer v. Whall (5 Ad. & El., N. S.,
447), 249.
Merchant v. Howell (Minn., 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 131), 316.
Mercliants' Bank v. Harrison (39 Mo.
433), 136.
Merchants' Bank v. Spalding (9 N. Y.
53), 243.
Merchants' Dis. Co. v. Leysor (89 111.
48), 362.
Merchon v. Duer (40 N. J. Eq. 333),
246.
Meredith v. Footner (11 M. & W.
203), 71.
Meriam v. Harsen (3 Barb. 332), 316.
Meriwether v. State (81 Ala. 74; 1
S. Rep. 560), 167.
Merscheim \. Mus, M. P. Union (34
Abb. N. C. 253), 154.
Merrill v. Eastern R. Co. (139 Mass.
353), 350.
Merrill v. Floyd (3 C. C. A. 58), 367.
Merrill v. Mary (10 Allen, Mass., 416),
343.
Merritt v. Day (38 N. J. L. 33), 69.
Merritt v. Pollys (16 B. Mon., Ky.,
355), 69.
Merritt v. Straw (33 N. E. Rep. 657),
140.
Merritt v. White (31 Mass. 438), 1500.
Mersmaa v. Werges (113 U. S. 141),
239.
Mertz V. Detweiler (8 W. & S., Pa.,
376), 73, 193.
Meskimen v. Day (35 Kan. 46),
136.
M. E. Church v. Jaqiies (1 Johns.,
N, Y., Ch. 65), 305.
Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Rogers
(3 C. C. A. 666; 53 Fed. Rep.
776), 380.
Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. Johnson
(Ga., 1893, 18 S. E. Rep. 816),
334.
Meyer v. Cadwalader (40 Fed. Rep.
33), 343.
Meyer v. Campbell (20 N. Y. S. 705 ;
1 Misc. Rep. 283), 350.
Meyer v. Gassett (38 Ark. 377), 136.
Meyer v. Gullinan (105 111. 372), 304.
Meyer v. Houck (Iowa, 1893, 52 N.
W. Rep. 235), 11.
Meyer v. Roth (51 Cal. 582), 131.
Meyer v. Sefton (3 Stark. 374), 37.
Meyers v. Standart (11 Ohio St. 39),
69.
Miami, etc. Co. v. Baily (37 Ohio St.
104), 303.
Michael v. Crescent Pipe Line Co.
(Pa., 1893, 38 Atl. Rep. 204), 199.
Michael v. Foil (100 N. C. 189), 171.
Michael v. Mace (137 111. 485), 150a.
Michels v. Olmstead (14 Fed. Rep.
219), 313.
Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Carrow (73
111. 348), 73a.
Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Gowgar
(55 111. 508), 73a.
Michigan, etc. R. Co. v. Barnes (44
Mich. 332), 344.
Michigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred (143
U. S. 293), 7.
Michigan Sav. Bank v, Butler (98
Mich. 381 ; 57 N. W. Rep. 253),
308.
Mickelson v. Reves (94 N. C. 559),
205.
Middleditch t. Williams (45 N. J.
Eq. 736), 51.
Middleton v. Melton (10 B. & C. 317),
117.
Middleton v. State (53 Ga. 527), 324.
Midland R. Co. v. Island Coal Co.
(126 Ind. 384), 371.
Milbank v. Jones (1-7 N. Y. S. 464), 74.
Miles V. Miles (33 N. H. 147), 304
TABLE OF OASES.
CXXl
Refereneea are to sections.
Miles V. 0'llara(4 Binn., Pa,, 108),
13t.
Milford V. Powner (126 Ind. 528), 110.
Milford V. Veazie (Me., 1888, 14 Atl.
Rep. 730), 126.
Milfree v. State (13 Tex. App. 340),
233.
Millay v. Butts (35 Me. 189), 239.
Miller's Appeal (31 Pa, St. 33T), 215.
Miller v. Avery (2 Barb. Ch. 582),
142,
Miller v. Eldridge (26 Ind. 461), 23.
Miller v. Fechtborn (31 Pa. St. 253),
208.
Miller v. Fletcher (27 Gratt,, Va.,
403), 205.
Miller v. Indianapolis (123 Ind. 196),
142.
Miller v. Insurance Co. (1 Abb. N.
C. 470), 216,
Miller v. Johnston (37 Md. 6), 140.
Miller v. Jones (32 Ark, 337), 140,
Miller v. Knapp (36 W. N. C. 29),
147,
Miller v. Miller (2 Bing. N, C. 76), 138,
Miller v. Montgomery (78 N. Y. 285),
309.
Miller v. Motter (35 Md, 438), 309.
Miller v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins, Co.|(31
Iowa, 216), 300.
Miller v. Neimerick (19 111. 173), 69,
Miller v. Powell (53 Mo. 252), 136.
Miller v. Railway Co. (58 Wis. 310),
356.
Miller V. Russell (7 Mart., N. S., 366),
133.
Miller v. Saunders (17 Ga. 92), 305.
■Miller v. Shackelford (4 Dana, Kv.,
364), ]50a.
Miller v. Shay (145 Mass. 162), 60.
Miller v. State (68 Miss, 221), 8, 93.
Miller v. State (18 Tex. 232), 9.
Miller v. Stevens (100 Mass, 518), 317,
Miller v. Union Switch & Signal Co.
(59 Hun, 624), 153,
Miller v, Williams (5 Esp. 19, 31), 83.
Miller v. Windsor W. Co. (HO W. N.
C, 85; 148 Pa, St. 429), 8, 368,
Miller v. Wood (44 Vt, 378), 80.
Miller Ins, Co. v. Kiuneard (35 111.
App, 105), 213.
Millet V. Marston (63 Me. 477), 209.
Millott V. N. Y. & N. E. R, Co, (19
N, Y. S, 122; 64 Hun, 634), 11.
Mills V. Davis (113 N, Y. 243). 309.
Mills V. Husson (63 Hun, 632), 377,
Mills V, Lee (4 Hill, 549), 302.
Mills V. Oddy (6 C. & P, 728), 173,
Mills V. Railroad Co. (41 N. J, Eq, 1),
83.
Milw. etc. Co, V. Johnson (35 Neb.
554), 216.
Milw. etc. Co. V. Kellogg (94 U, S,
469), 186, 200.
Mimms v. State (16 Ohio St. 231), 9.
Minis V, Schwarz (37 Tex. 13), 242.
Minchin v. Minchin (33 N. E. Rep.
104; 157 Mass, 265), 313.
Miner v. Atherton (35 Pa. St, 538),
215.
Miner v. Bnron (131 N. Y. 677), 374.
Mines v. Perry (113 Mass, 374), 139.
Minet v. Morgan (L. R. 8 Ch. 361),
174.
Ming V. Foote (9 Mont. 201 ; 33 Pac.
Rep, 515),' 38, 45.
Minn. M. Co. v. Minn. etc. Ry. Co.
(51 Minn, 304; 53 N, W. Rep.
639), 121.
Minnesota S. Ag. Soc. v. Swan-son
(48 Minn. 231), 369.
Minor v. Kirkland (Tex., 1893, 20
S. W. Rep, 932), 230.
Minor v. Powers (Tex. Civ, App,,
1894, 34 S, W. Rep. 710), 317,
220.
Minor v. Stone (1 La. Ann. 283), 344.
Minor v. Tillotson (7 Pet. 100), 30.
Minter v. People (39 N. E, Rep. 45 ;
39 111. App. 438), 354a.
Minzenheimer v. Heinze (74 Tex.
354), 357,
Mishler v. Baumgardner (1 Am. Ij.
J. 304), 313.
Mississippi, etc, Co. v. More (15 S. W.
Rep. 714, Tex., 1891), 58, 83a.
cxxu
TABLE OF CASBS.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Missouri, etc. Co. v. Baier (Neb,,
1893, 55 N. W. Rep. 913), 56.
Missouri, etc. Co. v. Bond (Tex., 1893,
20 S. W. Rep. 930), 53.
Missouri, etc. Co. v. German (81 Tex.
41), 33.
Missouri, etc. Co. v. Heidenheimer
(83 Tex. 195), 151.
Missouri Glass Co. v. Grigg (Tex.,
1890, 16 S. W. Rep. 174), 148.
Jlisaouri Pac. R. Co. v. Pierce (39
Kan. 391), 368.
Missouri Pao. R. Co. v. Sherwood (84
Tex. 125), 73a.
Mitchell V. Bradstreet Co. (116 Mo.
226; 33 S. W. Rep. 734), 369.
Mitchell V. Cochran (10 N. Y. S. 545 ;
57 Hun, 589), 308.
Mitchell V. Judge (53 Mich. 541),
285.
Mitchell V. Mitchell (15 S. W. Rep.
705; SO Tex. 101), 168.
Mitchell V. SheriflE (7 Abb. Pr. 95),
388.
Mitchell V. State (71 Ga. 123), 124.
ilitchell V. State (94 Ala. 68 ; 10 S.
Rep. 518), 346, 349, 350.
Mitchell V. State (58 Ala. 418), 194.
Mitchinson v. Cross (58 111. 366, 369),
166.
Mitchmer v. Holmes (Mo., 1893, 20
S. W. Rep. 1070), 136.
Mithoff V. Byrne (30 La. Ann. 863),
231.
Mittnacht v. Slevin (67 Hun, 315),
205, 220.
Mix V. Osby (63 III. 193), 73a.
Mix V. Shattuck (50 Vt. 431), 69.
Mix V. Staples (63 Hun, 631), 189.
Mixter Coal Co. v. Smith (153 Pa. St.
395), 8.
Mizer v. Bristol (30 Neb. 138), 249.
Moale V. Buchanan (11 Gill & J. 314),
223.
Mobile Bank v, McDonnell (89 Ala.
434), 70, 311.
Mobile, etc. Co. v. Blakely (59 Ala.
471), 198.
Mobile, etc. Co. v. George (94 Ala.
199; 10 S. Rep. 145), 24.
Mobile, etc. Co. v. Klein (43 111. App.
63), 73a.
Mobile, etc. Co. v. Ladd (9 S. Rep.
169; 93 Ala. 287), 145.
Mobile, etc. Co. v. Whitney (39 Ala.
468), 243.
Mobile, etc. Co. v. Worthington (95
Ala. 598; IDS. Rep. 839), 8.
Mobile L. Ins. Co. v. Walker (58 Ala.
290), 185.
Mobile Sav. Bank v. McDonnell (89
Ala. 434; 8 S. Rep. 137), 208.
Mockabee v. Com. (78 Ky. 380), 101.
Modern Woodmen v. Sutton (33 III.
App. 337), 350.
Moett V. People (8.i N. Y, 373), 351.
Moffatt V. Terney (30 Pac. Rep. 348 ;
17 Colo. 189), 347.
Moffett V. WitherspooQ (10 Ired. L.
185), 74.
Moline Wagon Co. v. Preston (85 111.
App. 358), 353.
Molyneux v. Collier (13 Ga. 406),
114.
Monkton v. Attorney-General (2 R.
& M. 147, 160), 113.
Monroe v. Snow (131 111. 126), 60.
Monroe's Estate, In re (23 Abb. N.
C. 83; 5N. Y. S. 552), 194, 201.
Monroe's Will, In re (20 N. Y. S. 83;
3 Con. Sur. 395), 169.
Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker (147 U.
S. 47), 304.
Monselle v. Bacon (66 Hun, 628), 880.
Montague v. Stoltz (S. C, 1893, 15 S.
E. Rep. 868), 880.
Montezuma v. Wilson (Ga., 1889, 9
S. E. Rep. 17), 21.
Montgomery v. Bevans (1 Sawy. C.
C. 653), 333.
Montgomery v. Com. (88 Ky. 509),
231.
Montgomery v. Con. Bridge Co. (110
Pa. St. 54), 7.
Montgomery v, Deeley (8 Wis. 623),
343.
TABLE OF OASES.
CSXUl
Beferencee are to sections.
Montgomery v. Maguire(25 III. App.
31), 57.
Montgomery v. Perkins (2 Met., Ky.,
418), 269.
Montgomery v. Pickering (116 Mass.
227), 174.
Montgomery y. Scott (34 Wis. 338),
194, 198.
Montgomery v. State (11 Ohio, 421),
124.
Montgomery v. State (80 Ind. 338),
103.
Montrose v. Wanamaker (67 Hun,
590), 154.
Montross v. Eddy (53 N. W. Eep.
916; 94 Mich. 100), 369.
Moody V. Rowell (17 Pick., Mass.,
490), 139, 139a, 140, 141, 341.
Moody T. Smith (70 N. Y. 598), 268.
Mooers v. Bunker (29 N. H. 42), 53.
Mooney v. Holcomb (15 Oreg. 639),
329,
Mooney v. Hough (84 Ala. 80), 343.
Mooney v. Olsen (23 Kan. 69), 151.
Moore v. Bunner (81 111. App. 400),
146.
Moore v. Butler (48 N. H.'l61), 73.
Moore v. Com. (92 Ky. 630; 18 S. W.
Rep. 833), 249.
Moore v. Dulsen (79 Ga. 456), 309.
Moore v. Green (73 N. C. 394), 386.
JVToore v. Jackson (4 Wend., N. Y.,
59), 318.
Moore v. Knott (14 Oreg. 35), 60.
Moore v. McDonald (68 Md. 331),
368.
Moore v. MdCee (13 Miss. 238), 166.
Moore v. Moore (39 Iowa, 461), 124.
Moore v. Pickett (62 111. 138), 246.
Moore v. Robertson (63 Hun, 633),
361.
Moore v. Spier (80 Ala. 130), 269.
Moore v. State (17 Ohio St. 321), 193.
Moore v. State (79 Ga. 498), 319.
Moore v. United States (91 U. S. 370),
140.
Moore v. United States (17 Ct. of CI.
17), 233,
I
Moore V. Voss (1 Cranch, C. C. 179),
205.
Moore v. Wilkins (10 N. H. 455), 56.
Moore v. Worth (2 Duv., Ky., 808).
340.
Moore v. Wright (90 111. 470), 80, 207.
Moorewood v. Wood (14 East, 330),
113.
Moors V. Albro (129 Mass. 9), 129.
Moran v. Hayes (1 Johns. Ch. 839),
246.
More V. Wood (14 East, 337), 140.
Moi-eland v. Bernhardt (44 Tex. 375),
223.
Morgan v. Atlanta (77 Ga. 663), 242.
Morgan v. Burrows (45 Wis. 311),
220.
Morgan v. Cree (46 Vt. 786) ; 342.
Morgenthau v. Walker (31 N. Y. S.
936), 351.
Morin v. Multnomah Co. (18 Oreg.
163 ; 22 Pac. Rep. 490), 277.
Morneno v. State (Tex., 1893, 21 S.
W. Rep. 934), 4.
Morning Journal v. Jones (133 N. Y.
207), 10.
Morrell v. Kelly (157 Mass. 126; 31
N. E. Rep. 755), 380.
Morrill v. Foster (33 N. H. 379), 53.
Morrill v. Tegarden (19 Neb. 534), 188.
Morris v. Atl. Ave. R. R, Co. (116 N.
Y. 556), 350.
Morris V. Cain (39 La. Ann, 713; 1
S. Rep. 879), 172.
Morris v. Callanan (105 Mass. 139),
115.
Morris v. Columbian Iron Works &
D. D. Co. (Md., 1893, 25 Atl. Rep.
417), 336, 337.
Morris v. Davidson (49 Ga. 361), 243.
Morris v. Davies (3 C. & P. 315), 350.
Morris v. Davis (5 C. &Fin. 163), 334.
Morris v. Harmes' Heirs (7 Pet. 558),
14.
Morris v. Morris (119 Ind. 343), 172,
178.
Morris v. Morton (Ky., 1893, 20 S. W.
Eep. 287), 60, 333.
exxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
Morris v. Morton's Ex'rs (Ky., 1892,
20 a W. Rep. 287), 7.
Morris v. Nixon (1 How.,U. S., 118),
67, 76.
Morris v. Peckham (51 Conn. 128),
267.
Morris v. Patchin (24 N. Y. 394), 148.
Morris v. State (31 Tex. App. 597),
10.
Morris v. State (3 Tex. App. 502),
357.
Morris v. Stokes (24 Ga. 552), 80. ^
Morris v. Wliite (36 N. J. Eq. 334),
304.
Morrison v. Cliapin (97 Mass. 76), 337.
Morrison v. Leonard (3 C. & P. 127),
816.
Morrison v. Porter (35 Minn. 425),
140.
Morrison v. Railroad (Iowa, 1893, 57
N. W. Rep. 75), 344.
Morrison v. ■Wiiite(16 La. Ann. 100),
135.
Morrow v. Ostrander (13 Hun, 219),
335.
Morse v. Bellows (7 N. H. 549), 69.
Morse v. Hewett (38 ^ich. 481), 243.
Morse v. Stearns (181 Mass. 3S9), 220.
Morss V. Morss (11 Barb. 310), 313.
Mortimer v. Chambers (17 N. Y. S.
553), 140.
Mortimer v. Met. E. R. Co. (129 N. Y.
84), 362.
Morton v. Barrett (19 Me. 109), 53.
Morton v. Dean (13 Met., Mass., 888),
268.
Morton v. Nelson (111., 1893, 33 N. B.
Rep. 916), 262.
Morvant, Succession of (45 La. Ann.
207), 139.
Mosely v. Davis (11 Price, 163), 112.
Mosely v. Martin (87 Ala. 216), 220,
237.
Moses V. Penquit (83 Ala. 370), 60.
Mosley v. Insurance Co. (55 Vt. 143),
241.
Mosley v. Martin (37 Ala. 316), 237,
343
Moss V. Cent. Park R. R. Co. (23 N.
Y. S. S3), 176.
Mossman v. Forrest (27 Ind. 233),
239.
Moultou V. Bowker (59 N. Y. 533),
74.
Moulton V. Harris (94 Cal. 430), 362.
Moundsville v. Velton (13 S. E. Rep.
873), 243.
Mounett v. Mounett (46 Ohio St. 80),
320.
Mountjoy v. State (78 Ind. 173), 357.
Mount Vernon v. Brooks (89 111. App.
426). 339, 840.
Moursund v. Priess (Tex., 1892, 84
Tex. 554; 19 S. W. Rep. 775),
150.
Moy V. Hoydun (30 Miss. 110), 141.
Muckle V. Rendle (16 N. Y. S. 208),
199.
Muckleroy v. Bethany (27 Tex. 551),
128.
Mudd V. Suckermore (5 A. & E. 708 ;
31 E. C. L.), 139.
Mueller v. Relhan (94 111. 143), 66,'
69.
Mugge V. Adams (76 Tex. 448), 130.
Muldowney v. 111. Cent. R. Co. (36
Iowa, 473), 186.
Mulhado v. Brooklyn, etc. Co. (30
N. Y. 870), 345.
Mulhall V. Keen (ISWall., U. S., 342),
144.
Mulhearn v. Press Pub. Co. (53 N. J.
L. 153), 385.
Mullaly V. Walsh (I. R. 6 0. L. 314),
338.
Mullaney v. Duffy (145 111. 559; 83
N. E. Rep. 250), 110, 115.
Mullen V. Morris (2 Pa. St. 85), 143.
Mullen V. Railroad (31 N. Y. S. 101),
11.
MuUins V. Com. (Ky., 1893, 30 S. W.
Rep. 1085), 93.
Mullis V. Cairns (5 Blaokf., Ind., 77),
184.
Munde v. Lambre (125 Mass. 867),
343.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXV
Heferenoes are to sections.
Mundhenk v. Central Iowa E. Co.
(57 Iowa, 718), 75.
Munn V. Burch (25 111. 21), 343.
Munn V. Owens (3 Dill. 477), 308.
Munroe v. Napier (52 Ga. 388), 308.
Hunroe v. Perkins (9 Pick. 398), 314.
Munshower v. State (55 Md. 11), 145.
Munson v. Atwood (30 Conn. 103), 0.
Munson v. Wickwire (31 Conn. 513),
68.
Murchie v. Cook (1 Ala. 41), 318.
Murdock v. Summer (33 Pick. 158),
199.
Murdock v. Union Bank (2 Rob. 113),
230.
Murieta v. Wolfhagen (3 C. & K.
744; 61 K C. L.), 139.
Murphy v. Collins (181 Mass. 0), 330.
Murphy v. Com. (18 N. Y. S. 353; 38
Abb. N. C. 207), 350.
Murphy v. Com, (33 Gratt., Va., 960),
, 350.
Murphy V. Hagerman (Wright, Ohio,
393, 297), 140.
Murphy v. Hendricks (57 Ind. 593),
843.
Murphy v. Hiebert(]6 Pa. St. 50), 71.
Murphy V.May (19 Bush, Ky., 33),
73a.
Murphy v. People (9 Colo. 435), 10.
Murphy v. People (37 111. 447), 334.
Murphy v. Railroad Co. (63 Hun,
587), 18.
Murphy v. St. Louis Type Foundry
(39 Mo. App. 541), 76.
Murphy V. State (Tex., 1893, 81 S.
W. Rep. 45), 883.
Murray v. Chase (134 Mass. 93), 74.
Murray v. Elston (33 N. J. Eq. 318),
388.
Murray v. G. W. Ins. Co. (25 N. Y.
S. 414), 340.
Murray v. Gregory (5 Wels. & H.
468), 38.
Murray v. Milner (L. R. 13 Ch. Div.
845), 53.
Murray v. Murray (6 Oreg. 17), 233.
Murray v. Sells (53 Ga. 357), 83.
Murray v. State (6 S. Rep. 498), 90.
Murray v. State (35 Fla. 528; 18 S.
Rep. 453), 89, 249.
Murray, In re (41. La. Ann. 1109),
144.
Murrell v. Mandlebaum (Tex., 19 S.
W. Rep. 880), 363.
Murtaugh v. Murphy (30 111. App.
59), 351.
Mussey v. Beecher (3 Cush., Mass.,
517), 73a.
Musson V. Fales (16 Mass. 335), 333.
Mutual Benefit L. I. Co. v. Ruse (8
Ga. 530), 205.
Mutual, etc. Co. v. Tillman (84 Tex.
31), 50, 53.
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Carey (54 Hun,
493; 135 N. Y. 326), 135, 157.
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Anthony (50
Huu, 101), 131.
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson
(Ky., 1893, 22 S. W. Rep. 87), 375.
Myers v. Kinzie (26 111. 36), 70.
Myers v. Munson (65 Iowa, 423), 210.
Myers v. State (46 Ohio St. 473; 83
N. E. Rep. 43), 244.
Myers v. State (7 Tex. App. 040), 424.
N.
Nadau v. White Lumber Co. (76
Wis. 120; 43 N. W. Rep. 1035), 79.
Nagee v. Osborne (33 N. Y. 669), 139a.
Nalle V. Gates (20 Tex. 315), 69.
Nash V. Gilkerson (5 S. & R. 352), 10.
Nash V. Hall (4 Ind. 444), 250.
Nash V. Town (5 Wall. 698), 373.
Nashau. etc. Co. v. Boston, etc. Corp.
(31 N. E. Rep. 1060; 157 Mass.
268), 815.
Nashville Life Ins. Co. v. Mathews-
(8 Lea, Tenn., 899), 331.
National Bank v. Dunn (106 Ind.
110), 198.
National Bank v. Richardson (3 N. Y.
S. 804), 239.
National Bank v. Scriven (68 Hun,
375), 349.
CXXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferences are to sections.
National Bank v. Stephenson (83
Tex. 435), 20.
National Bank v. Wood (19 N. Y. S.
81), 247.
National Harrow Co. v. Hanby (54
Fed. Rep. 493), 231, 250.
National State Bank v. Richardson
(2 N. Y. S. 804), 230.
National S. S. Co. v. Tugman (143
U. S. 23), 355.
National Syrup Co. v. Carlson (42
111. App. 178), 347.
National Ulster Co. Bank v. Madden
(114 N. Y. 280), 60.
Nations v. Johnson (24 How. , U. S. ,
195), 232.
Navarro v. State (24 Tex. 378 ; 6 S.
W. Rep. 542), 194, 355.
Nave V. Riiter (41 Ind. 301), 357.
Nay V. Curley (113 N. Y. 575), 230,
308.
Neaderheuser v. State (28 Ind. 257),
239. '
Neal V. Deming (21 S. W. Rep. 1066),
368.
Neal V. Reams (88 Ga. 298), 222.
Neal V. Wilding (2 Str. 1151), 53.
Neally v. Greenough (5 Foster, N. H.,
325), 126.
Nearpass v. Oilman (104 N. Y. 507),
309.
Neely v. State (27 Tex. App. 324), 89,
95, 323.
Neff v. Cincinnati (33 Ohio St. 315),
253.
Neil v. State (79 Ga. 779), 368.
Neill's Estate (7 N. Y. S. 197), 178.
Neland v. Murphy (73 Wis. 326),
50.
Nelins v. Buckell (1 Hayw. 19), 138.
Nelson v. GraflE (44 Mich. 483), 136.
Nelson v. Harrington (73 Wis. 591 ;
40 N. W. Rep. 328), 346.
Nelson v. Ladd (54 N. W. Rep. 309,
S. D., 1893), 344.
Nelson v. M. Ins. Co. (71 N. Y. 453),
188.
Nelson v. Nelson (66 Hun, 633), 382.
Nelson v. New York (131 N. Y. 4),
60.
Nelson v. State (3 Swan, Tenn., 237),
330.
Nelson V. State (33 Fla. 244; 13 S.
Rep; 861), 10, 349.
Nelson v. State (1 Tex. App. 41), 23.
Nelson v. Sun Ins. Co. (71 N. Y. 453),
185.
Nelson v. Wallace (48 Mo. App. 193),
10, 249.,
Nesbit V. Greenville (69 Miss. 23; 10
S. Rep. 452), 13.
Nesbitt V. Cavendar (37 S. C. 1), 223.
Nesbitt V. Riverside (144 U. S. 610),
145.
Newberry v. Robinson (36 Fed. Rep.
841), 242.
Newberry v. Sheffly (89 Va. 286; 15
S. E. Rep. 548), 145.
Newberry v. State (26 Fla. 334; 8 S.
Rep. 445), 11. I
Newoomb v. Wood (7 Otto, U. S.,
581), 315.
Newcomb v. Jones (37 Mo. App. 475),
80, 83.
Newoomb v. Presbury (8 Met. 406),
84.
Newell v. Homer (120 Mass. 277),
348.
Newell v. Newell (9 Paige, N. Y., 26),
202.
Newell v. Nichols (13 Hun, N. Y.,
644; 75 N. Y. 78), 233.
New England, etc. Co. v. Farming-
ton, etc. Co. (8 W. & S. 339), 143.
New England Glass Co. v. Lovell (7
Cush. 819), 198.
New England Mon. Co. v. Johnson
(144 Pa. St. 61), 30.
New England Mortg. Co. v. Gay (33
Fed. Rep. 636), 208.
Newhall v. Appleton (114 N. Y. 143),
316.
Newhall v. Holt (6 M. & W. 662),
80.
Newhall v. Jenkins (3 Gray, 562), 76.
Newhan v. Aurora (14 111. 364), 143a.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXVU
Heferences are to sections.
New Haven Co. Bank v. Mitchell (15
Conn. 206), 138, 330.
New Jersey v. Yard (95 U. S. 112),
242.
New Jersey Mut. L. I. Co. v. Baker
(94 U. S. 610), 208.
Newland v. Douglas (3 Johns. 63),
314.
Newman v. Greenville (7 S. Eep.
403; 67 Miss. 770), 231.
Newman v, McComas (48 Md. 70),
69.
Newman v. Samuels (17 Iowa, 538),
136.
New Mexican R. E. Co. v. Hen-
dricks (N. Mex., 1893, 30 Pac.
Eep. 901), 199.
New Milford v. Sherman (31 Conn.
101), 56.
New Portland v. King (55 Me. 173),
36.
Newsom v. Bufferton (1 Dev. Eq.
383), 233.
Newson v. Dodson (61 Tex. 91), 53.
Newton v. Belcher (13 Q. B. 931), 83.
Newton v. Harland (9 Dowl. 16),
376.
Newton v. Mut. Ben, L..Ins. Co. (3
Dill. C. C. 154), S7.
Newton v. Newton (46 Minn. 33 ; 48
N. W. Rep. 450), 350.
Newton v. Seamen's Fr. Soc. (130
Mass. 91), 310.
Newton v. State (Miss., 1893, 12 S.
Rep. 560), 11.
Newton v. State (43 La. Ann. 33), 53.
New York City v. Second Av. E. R.
Co. (103 N.Y. 579), 60.
New- York L. Ins. Co. v. Aitkins
(125 N. Y. 560), 159.
New York Phar. Ass'n v. Tilden (14
Fed. Eep. 740), 134.
New York Smelting Co. v. Lieb (4
N. Y. S. 545 ; 56 Super. Ct. Rep.
308), 309.
Ney v. Dubuque, etc. Co. (20 Iowa,
347), 205.
Ney V. Mumme (66 Tex. 268), 31.
Ney V. Troy (50 Hun, 604 ; '3 N. Y. S.
679), 192.
Nichols V. Brunswick (3 Cliff., U. S.
C. C, 88), 376.
Nichols V. Burch (138 Ind. 334; 27
N. E. Rep. 737), 208.
Nichols V. Goldsmith (7 Wend. 360),
758.
Nichols V. Howe (43 Minn. 181), 130.
Nichols V. Johnson (10 Conn. 192),
128.
Nichols V. Jones (32 Mo. App. 657),
74, 76.
Nichols V. Parker (14 East, 331),
114.
Nichols V. Webb (8 Wheat. 326), 58,
60.
Nichols V. Wentworth (100 N. Y.
455) 336.
Nicholson v. State (38 Md. 140), 89.
Niederluck v. State (21 Tex. App.
330), 90.
Nies V. Broadhead (27 N. Y, S. 52),
38a.
Nilan v. Kalish (Neb., 1893, 55 N. W.
Rep. 395), 167.
Nipper v. Jones (27 Mo. App. 558),
60.
Nixon V. McKinney (105 N. C. 23),
50, 308.
Nixon V. Palmer (10 Barb. 175, 178),
231.
Nixon V. Porter (34 Miss. 697), 108,
115.
Nixon V. State (31 Tex. Crim. App.
205), 9.
Nobles V. Hogg (36 S. C. 332), 362.
Noftsger v. Smith (Ind., 1893, 32 N.
E. Eep. 1034), 863.
Noftsinger v. State (7 Tex. App. 301),
10.
Nolan V. Bolton (25 Ga. 352), 215.
Nolan V. Pelham (77 Ga. 262), 31,
136.
Norcross v. Weldon (59 Vt. 50), 18.
Nordans v. Hubbard (48 Fed. Rep.
931), 316.
Norelli v. Rossi (3 Bradw. 757), 158.
CXXVUl
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Norfolk Nat. Bank v. "Wood (33 Neb.
113), 71.
Nork V. Beach (129 N. Y. 621), 139,
208.
Norman v. Morrell (4 Ves. 769), 218.
Norman, In re (33 N. W. Rep. 374;
72 Iowa, 84), 33.
Norris v. Beach (2 Johns. 294), 286.
Norris v. Harris (15 Cal. 236), 231.
Norris v. Moody (84 Cal. 143), 236.
Norris v. State (Tex., 1893, 32 S. W.
Rep. 592), 283.
Norris v. Stewart (105 N. C. 455),
168.
Norsler v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
(73 Iowa, 268), 304.
North V. People (38 N. E. Rep. 966;
139 111. 81), 86, 101, 283.
North Brookfield v. Warren (16
Gray, 174), 53.
North Carolina University v. Harri-
son (90 N. C. 385), 333.
North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cotting-
ham (44 111. App. 46), 848.
North Chicago, etc. Co. v. Hudson
(44 111. App. 60), 8.
North Mfg. Co. v. Chambers (58
Mich. 381), 241.
Northern Bank v. Lewis (78 Wis.
475), 319.,
Northern Mich. Lumber Co. v. Lyon
(95 Mich. 584; 55 N. W. Rep.
438), 84.
Northern Mich. Lumber Co. v. Mc-
Alister (40 Mich. 84), 310.
Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Charless
(51 Fed. Rep. 562; 2 C. C. A.
, 380), 333.
Northern P. etc. Co. v. O'Brien
(Wash., 1890, 21 Pac. Rep. 33),
24.
Northrop v. Hale (76 Me. 309), 53.
Northrop v. Wright (24 Wend. 221),
105.
Northrup v. Jackson (13 Wend. 86),
126.
North Stonington v. Stonington (31
Conn. 412), 51.
Northwestern Bank v. Nelson (1
Gratt., Va., 108), 305.
Norton v. Atchison (30 Pac. Rep.
585; 97 Cal. 388), 208.
Norton v. Bank (50 Ark. 59), 250.
Norton v. Conner (14 S. W. Rep.
193, Tex., 1892), 105.
Norton v. Doherty (3 Gray, Mass.,
372), 151.
Norton v. Moore (3 Head, Tenn.,
482), 98.
Norton v. Norton (17 N. Y. St. Rep.
487), 330.
Norton v. Paxton (110 Mo. 456; 19
S. W. Rep. 807), 248.
Norvell v. McHenry -(1 Mich. 337),
244.
Norwegian Plow Co. v. Hanthorn
(71 Wis. 539; 37 N. W. Rep. 835),
341.
Nott V. Thomson (35 S. C. 461 ; 14 S.
E. Rep. 940), 343.
Nowlen v. Lyon (41 N. W. Rep. 496;
73 Mich. 434), 150.
Nowlin V. Burwell (75 Va. 551), 108.
Noyes v. Pugin (3 Wash. St. 258),
380.
Noyes v. State C^O N. J. L. 439),
323.
Noyes v. White (19 Conn. 250), 57,
116.
Nuckols' Adm'r v. Jones (8 Gratt,,
Va., 267), 133.
Nudd V. Burrows (91 U. S. 439), 11.
Numrich v. Supreme Lodge (3 N, Y.
S. 552), 178.
Oakland v. Rye (52 Cal. 270), 83.
Oakley v. Slate (40 Ala. 392), 211.
Oaks V. Weller (16 Vt. 71), 225.
Oaksmith v. Johnson (93 U. S. 343),
226.
O'Bannon v. Vigus (32 111. App. 473),
80.
Oberman Brew. Co. v. Adams (35
111. App. 540), 80.
TABLE OF OASES.
CXXIX
Beferenoes are to sections.
Obernalte v. Edgar (28 Neb. 70 ; 44
N. W. Rep. 83), 333.
O'Blenis v. State (47 N. J. L. 279), 10.
O'Brien v. Com. (6 Bush, Ky., 563),
123.
O'Brien v. McCann (58 N. Y. 378),
331.
O'Brien v. Weiler (68 Hun, 64), 309,
375.
O'Bryan v. Allen (95 Mo. 68 ; 8 S. W.
Rep. 225), 330.
Ocean Ins. Co. v. Francis (3 Wend.
64), 242.
Ochoa V. Wilier (59 Tex. 461), 149.
O'Connell v. Main Hotel Co. (90 Cal.
515), 363.
O'Connell v. O'Brien (87 N. Y. 577),
349.
O'Connell v. People (87 N. Y. 377),
374.
O'Conner v. Ice Co. (56 N. Y. Super.
Ct. 410), 334.
O'Connor v. Andrews (81 Tex. 28),
18, 373.
O'Connor v. Curtis (18 S. W. Rep.
953, Tex., 1892), 363.
O'Connor v. Delaney (Minn., 1893,
51 N. W. Rep. 1108), 67.
Odel V. Culbert (9 W. & S. 66), 60.
Odell V. Koppel (o Heisk. 88), 316.
Odell V. Montrose (68 N. Y. 499), 233.
Odell V. Solomon (4 N. Y. S. 440),
124.
Odell, In re (6 Dem. Sur. 344), 332.
Odiorne v. Wade (8 Pick. 518), 288.
Ogden V. Lund (11 Tex. 688), 238.
Ogden V. Parsons (23 How., U. S.,
167), 198.
Oglesby v. Farman (77 Tex. 647), 143.
O'Hara v. Ring (52 111. 303), 140.
O'Hare v. Duckworth (4 Wash. St.
470), 51.
Ohio V. Sweeney (43 La. Ann. 1073),
333. .
Ohio, etc. Co. v. Cullison (40 111. App.
67), 57.
Ohio, etc. Co, v. Kleinsmith (38 111.
App. 45), 11.
Ohio, etc. Co. v. Levy (Ind., 1893, 32
N. E. Rep. 815), 355.
Ohio, etc. Co. v. Trapp (Ind., 1892,
30 N. E. Rep. 812), 276.
Ohio &,M. Ry. Co. v. Levy (84 N. E.
Rep. 245), 73a.
Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Stein (133 Ind.
243; 31 N. E. Rep. 180), 73a.
Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Walker (113
Ind. 196), 363.
Ohio Val. Ry. Co. v. Watson's Adm'r
(Ky., 1893, 21 S. W. Rep. 344), 8.
Ohlsen v. Terrero (L. R. 10 Ch. App.
127), 341.
Ohm v. San Francisco (Cal., 1890, 35
Pac. Rep. 155), 244.
O'Hogan v. Dillon (76 N. Y. 170),
335.
O'Kane v. Miller (3 Ind. App. 136),
250.
Oldsv. Marshall (93 Ala. 188; 8 S.
Rep. 284), 13.
Olive v. State (11 Neb. 1), 324.
Olmstead v. Bad (Md., 1893, 25 Atl.
Rep. 243), 145.
Olmstead v. Thompson (8 S. Rep.
755), 244.
Olsen V. Peterson (33 Neb. 358), 75.
Olson V. Gyertsen (42 Minn. 407), 190.
Omaha V. Ayres (33 Neb. 375), 250.
Omaha v. Jansen (35 Neb. 68; 53 N.
W. Rep. 833), 13.
Omaha Coal, etc. Co. v. Fay (Neb.,
1893, 55 N. W. Rep. 211), 362.
Omaha, etc. Co. v. Beeson (36 Neb.
361 ; 54 N. W. Rep. 557), 38, 367.
Omaha, etc. Co. v. Walker (17 Neb.
432), 253.
O'Malia v. Glynn (42 III. App. 51),
153.
O'Mara v. Com. (75 Pa. St. 424), 193.
Omichund v. Barker (Willes, 545,
547), 315.
O'Neill v. Howe (9 N. Y. S. 746),
333.
O'Neill V. Murray (6 Dak. 107), 173.
O'Neill V. Railway Co. (129 N. Y.
125), 198.
cxxx
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Opdyke v, Marble (18 Abb. N. O.
375), 358.
Opdyke v. Weed (18 Abb. Pr. 223),
249.
Oppenbeim v. Henry (9 Hare, 802),
150.
Oppenheimer v. Wright (106 Pa. St.
569), 136.
Ordway v. Conrow (4 Miss. 45), 148.
Oregon Short, etc. Co. v. N. P. Ry.
Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 465), 216.
Oregon S. S. Co. v. Otis (100 N. Y.
45), 230.
Orleans v. Chatham (3 Pick. 29), 246.
Orman v. State (23 Tex. App. 604),
174.
Ormsby v. People (53 N. Y. 473), 69.
Orne v. Townsend (4 Mason, 544),
144.
Orr V. Hadley (36 N. H. 575), 123.
Orr V. Hance (44 Mo. App. 461), 262.
Orr V. Lacey (2 Doug. 230), 810.
Orr V. Orr (35 S. C. 275), 50.
/ Orr V. Rode (101 Mo. 387), 309.
Orr Water Ditch, etc. Co. v. Jones
(19 Nev. 60), 8.
Orser v. Orser (24 N. Y. 51), 348.
Ort V. Fowler (81 Kan. 478), 140.
Ortiz V. State (.30 Fla. 256), 38a.
Osbiston v. Kaufman (29 Pac. Rep.
748 ; 1 Colo. App. 333), 840.
Osborn v. Bell (63 Mich. 218), 8.
Osborn v. Bell (5 Denio, 370), 133.
Osborn v. Blackburn (47 N. W. Rep.
175), 330.
Osborn v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 20 S. W.
Rep. 323), 91, 93.
Osborn v. Robins (37 Barb., N. Y.,
481), 70.
Osborn v. Stringham (S. D., 1894, 57
N. W. Rep. 776), 211.
Osborn v. Sutton (108 Ind. 443), 232.
Osborn v. United States Bank (9
Wheat. 866), 386.
Osborne v. Detroit (33 Fed. Rep. 36),
301.
Osgood V. Bauder (83 Iowa, 171 ; 47
N. W. Rep. 1001), 363.
Osgood V. Bringolf (88 Iowa, 265),
73a.
Osgood V. Davis (18 Me. 146), 305.
Osgood V. Pacey (23 111. App. 116X
78a.
Oskaloosa College r. Western U. T.
Co. (Iowa, 1893, 54 N. W. Rep.
153), 343.
Oslin V. Jerome (93 Mich. 186), 186.
Ostrander v. Snyder (36 N. Y. S. 263),
309.
Otis V. Conway (114 N. Y. 113), 371.
Otis V. Van Storch (15 R. I. 41), 73,
219.
Ottumwa V. Schaub (53 Iowa, 515),
142a.
Oughterson v. Clark (65 Hun, 624),
60, 61.
Outram v. Morewood (5 T. R. 138),
117.
Over V. Schifling (103 Ind. 181), 77,
. 363.
Overand v. Menczer (83 Tex. 132),
130, 310.
Overby v. Chesa. & Ohio Ry. Co. (37
W. Va. 524), 185, 187, 368.
Overlook v. Young (81 Me. 848), 345.
Overly v. Thrasher (47 Ga. 10), 77.
Overton v. State (60 Ala. 73), 339.
Owen V. Boyle (15 Me. 147), 343.
Owen V. Miss. Pac. R. Co. (38 Fed.
Rep. 571), 344.
Owens V. Gentry (80 S. C, 490), 376.
Owens V. Kansas City (95 Mo. 169),
194.
Owens V. State (10 S. Rep. 669; 94
Ala. 97), 9.
Owens V. State (Tex., 1893, 30 S. W.
Rep. 558), 33.
Owens V. State (74 Ala. 401), 51.
Owens V. Williams (114 Ind. 179),
346.
Owensby v. State (83 Ala. 63; 2 a
Rep. 764), 96.
Owings V. Hull (9 Pet., U. S., 624),
343.
Owings V. Speed (5 Wheat. 433^
303.
TABLE or OASES.
CXXXl
Beferences are to sections.
Pace V. Com. (Tex., 1893, 20 S. W.
Rep. 762), 93, 95, 97.
Pace V. Lanier (Fla., 1893, 13 S. W.
Rep. 363), 363.
Pacific R. R. Co., In re (32 Fed. Rep.
251-253), 288.
Pack V. Geofroy (19 N. Y. S. 583),
356.
Packard v. Bergen Neck R. Co. (54
N. J. L. 533), 8.
Packard v. Hill (2 Wend. 411), 143.
Packard v. Hill (7 Cow. 434), 149.
Packard v. Putnam (57 N. H. 43),
246.
Packard v. Richardson (17 Mass.
132), 268.
Packer v. Vandevender (13 Pa. St.
31), 229.
Packet V. State (1 Sneed, Tenn.,
355), 233.
Paddock v. Con. Ins. Co. (104 Mass.
531), 198.
Page V. Carter (8 B. Mon. 193), 352.
Page V. Einstein (7 Jones, N. C,
147), 215.
Page V. Kirby (63 Hun, 629), 263.
Page V. Page (15 Pick. 368), 130, 304.
Page V. State (61 Ala. 16), 188.
Page V. Swanton (39 Me. 400), 67.
Paige V. Chedsey (20 N. Y. S. 899),
176, 343.
Paige V. Kelly (5 Hill, 603), 199.
Paige V. Paige (71 Iowa, 318), 268.
Paige V. Sherman (6 Gray, 511), 208.
Paine v. Aldrich (30 N. E. Rep. 735),
7, 51, 197.
Paine v. Parsons (14 Pick. 313), 215.
Paine t. Schenectady (11 R. I. 411),
242.
Paine v. Tilden (5 Wash. C. C. 554),
355.
Paine v. Trask (56 Fed. Rep. 233),
367.
Painer v. Hodge (71 N. Y. 598), 60.
Pallitz V. Trust Co. (53 Ind. 310),
151.
Pallman v. Smith (135 Pa. St. 188;
19 Atl. Rep. 891), 760.
Palmer v. Fogg (35 Me. 368), 361.
Palmer v. Hamilton (Ky., 1894, 24
S. W. Rep. 613), 9.
Palmer v. Poore (121 Ind. 135), 128.
Palmer v. Rowan (21 Neb. 452), 285..
Palmerston v. Territory (3 Wyo.
333), 6.
Palmore v. State (29 Ark. 248), 102.
Palson V. State (Ind., 1893, 35 N. E.
' Rep. 907), 335.
Panama, etc Co. v. Johnson (63
Hun, 629), 247, 250.
Pandjiris v. McQueen (59 Hun, 635),
178.
Pangburn v. Insurance Co. (62 Mich.
638), 126.
Panton v. Holland (17 Johns. 92), 20.
Parcell v. McReynolds (71 Iowa, 621 ;
33 N. W. Rep. 139), 309.
Parent v. Wamsley's Adm'r (20 Ind.
82), 242.
Parhan v. Moran (4 Hun, 717), 309.
Paris V. Railroad Co. (28 Fla. 251),
233.
Paris, etc. Co. v. Greiner (84 Tex.
443), 18.
Park V. Hopkins (2 Bailoy, S. C, 408),
68.
Park V. Wooton (35 Ala. 243), 71.
Parke v. Smith (4 Watts & S. 287),
310.
Parker v. Amazon Ins. Co. (34 Wis.
363), 139.
Parker v. Carter (4 Munf. 273), 169.
Parker v. Chancellor (11 S. W. Rep.
503; 73 Tex. 475), 105, 106, 107.
Parker v. Crittenden (37 Conn. 148),
82.
P.arker v. Enslow (102 111. 272), 202.
Parker v. Foote (19 Wend. 309), 226.
Parker v. Foy (43 Miss. 260), 208.
Parker v. Handy (24 Pick. 246), 2.
Parker v. Kane (23 How. 1), 220.
Parker v. State (39 Ala. 365), 23.
Parker v. State (Ind., 1893, 35 N. E.
Rep. 1105), 346.
cxxxu
TAJ3LE OF OASES.
References are to sections.
Parker v. Way cross, etc. Co. (81 Ga.
387), 105.
Parkhurst v. Berdell (110 N. Y, 386),
167.
Parkhurst v. Ketcham (6 Allen, 406),
331.
• Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt (1 Johns.
Ch. 273), 246.
Parkins v. Hawkshaw (3 Stark.
1339), 169.
Parkinson v. Atkinson (31 L. J., N.
S., C. P. 199), 191.
Parkinson v. Trousdale (3 Scam.,
111., 367), 305.
Parks V. Boston (12 Pick,, Mass.,
S09), 344.
Parks V. Dunlap (86 Cal. 189), 156.
Parks V. Richardson (35 Mo. App.
192), 154.
Parlin v. Stone (48 Fed. Rep. 808),
84.
Parmelee v. Raymond (43 lU. App.
609), 199.
Parmer v. Parmer (88 Ala. 545), 323.
Parmetary v. State (105 N. Y. 154),
154.
Parris v. McNeal (55 N. W. Rep. 333;
36 Neb. 727), 308.
Parroski v. Goldberg (80 Wis. 399),
134.
Parrott v. Baker (82 Ga. 364), 66.
Parrott v. Swain (29 111. App. 366),
186.
Parsons v. Hughes (63 Hun, 631), 18.
Parsons v. Man. etc. Co. (16 Gray,
Mass., 463), 198.
Parsons v. New York Cent. R. R. Co.
(113 N. Y. 355), 363.
Parsons v. Phipps (4 Tex. 341), 310.
Parsons V. State (3 S. Rep. 854; 81
Ala. 577), 231.
Parsons v. Stockbridge (43 Ind. 131),
358.
Parsons v. Thornton (83 Ala. 308),
319.
Partee v. State (67 Ga. 570), 334.
Partridge v. Russell (3 N. Y. S. 529 ;
50 Hun, 601), 113, 115.
Pasachane Water Co. v. Standart
(Cal,, 1893, 33 Pac. Rep. 532),
198,
Pasadena v. Stimson (37 Pac. Rep.
604), 343.
Paschal v. State (89 Ga. 303; 15 S. E.
Rep. 332), 335.
Pashall V. Railroad Co. (66 Hun, 633),
39.
Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate (5
Pet, U. S., 603), 361.
Patch V. White (1 Mackey, D. C,
468), 331.
Patchen v. Brooklyn (3 Wend., N.
Y., 377), 844.
Patrick v. Crowe (15 Colo., 543), 75.
Patrick v. Skoman (Colo., 1893, 39
Pac. Rep. 31), 11.
Patten v. Messenger (25 Pa. St. 393),
73a.
Patten v. Ryan (4 Rawle, 408), 60.
Patten v. Tallman (37 Me. 17, 29), 138,
150.
Patten v. U. L. & Ace. Ins. Co. (61
Hun, 637), 178.
Patterson v. Boston (30 Pick., Mass.,
159), 199.
Patterson v. Choate (7 Wend. 441),
69.
Patterson v. Com. (86 Ky. 313), 93.
Patterson v. Gaines (6 How. 550),
304.
Patterson v. Insurance Co. (3 Har. &
J., Md., 71), 355.
Patterson v. McCausland (3 Bland,
' Md., 69), 237, 241.
Patterson V. Scott (143 111. 138; 31
N. E. Rep. 433), 304.
Patterson v. State (86 Ga. 70), 334.
Patterson v. Tucker (4 Halst. 332),
339,
Patterson v. Winn (5 Pet. 240), 804.
Patton V. Ash (7 Serg. & R. 116),
230.
Patton V. Beecher (63 Ala. 579), 246.
Paugh V. Paugh (40 111. App. 143),
220.
Paul V. Paul (37 N. J. Eq. 25), 350.
TABLE OF OASES.
CXXXllX
Beferences are to sections.
Pavy V. Pavy (30 Ohio St. 600), 140.
Pavy V. Wintrode (87 Ind. 379), 73a.
Pawling V. United States (4 Cranch,
231), 373.
Pawnee Ditch Co. v. Adams (1 Colo.
App. 350; 38 Pac. Eep. 663), 176.
Pawtucket v. Ballou (15 R. I. 58),
138, 376.
Paxton V. Marshall (18 Fed. Rep.
361), 135.
Paxton V. Paxton (W. Va., 1894, 18
S. E. Rep. 765), 308.
Payne v. Billingham (10 Iowa, 360),
150a.
Payne v. Dicus (Iowa, 1893, 55 N.
W. Rep. 483), 367.
Payne v. Hathaway (3 Vt. 312), 263.
Payne v. Kerr (66 Hun, 636), 809.
Payne v. State (31 Tex. App. 184),
339.
Payne v. State (61 Miss. 161), 103.
Payne v. State (60 Ala. 350), 350.
Payne v. Taylor (34 111. App. 491),
147.
Payne v. Treadwell (16 Cal. 331), 338,
243.
Payne v. Troy, etc. Co. (83 N. Y.
573), 13.
Payson v. Lampsou (134 Mass. 593),
310.
Peak V. State (50 N. J. L. 333), 101,
Pearce v. Hawkins (64 Tex. 435),
358.
Pearsall v. McCartney (38 Ala. 110),
349.
Pearse v. Pearse (1 De G. & Sm. 28),
169.
Pearsman v. Gould (43 N. J. Eq. 4 ;
8 Atl. Rep. 385), 376.
Pearson v. Uarrington (33 Ala. 337),
337.
Pearson v. McDaniel (63 Ga. 100),
139.
Pearson v. Pearson (46 Cal. 609), 53.'
Pearson v. Sabin (10 N. H. 305), 80.
Peart v. Price (153 Pa. St. 377), 320.
Pease v. Cole (53 Conn. 71), 347.
Pease v. Peck (18 How. 595), 141.
Pease v. Phelps (10 Conn. 63), 67.
Pease v. State (Ga., 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 113), 383, 378.
Peavey v. Tilton (18 N. H. 153), 339.
Peck V. Callahan (95 N. Y. 73), 140.
Peck V. Gary (37 N. Y. 9), 348.
Peck V. Grouse (46 Barb., N. Y., 151),
70.
Peck V. Hutchison (Iowa, 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 511), 369.
Peck V. Kitchie (66 Mo. 114), 73a.
Peck V. Parchen (52 Iowa, 46), 32.
Pecke V. Hunter (S6 Va. 768), 304.
Pecks V, Simis (22 N. E. Rep. 313),
237.
Peckham Iron Co. v. Harper (41 Ohio
St. 100). 76.
Pecquet v. Pecquet (17 La. Ann. 204),
343.
Peden v. Mail (18 Ind. 560), 68.
Pedrosena v. Hotchkiss (95 Cal. 636),
362.
Peek V. Boone (Ga., 1898, 17 S. W.
Rep. 66), 169.
Peek V. Detroit Novelty Works (39
Mich. 312), 73a.
Peekard v. Baily (6 Foster, N. H.,
153), 148.
Peeler v. Lathrop (48 Fed. Rep. 780),
804.
Pejepscot V. Ransom (14 Mass. 145),
218.
Pellum V. State (89 Ala. 28), 176.
Peltier v. State (33 Tex. App. 366),
331.
Pelzer Mauuf. Go. v. Sun Fire Office
of London (36 S. C. 213; 15 S. E.
Rep. 563), 200.
Pemigewasset Bank v. Rogers (18
N. H. 255), 73a.
Pence v. Waugh (Ind., 1893, 34 N. E.
Rep. 860), 340.
Pendery v. Crescent (21 La. Ann.
410), 33.
Pendill v. Neuberger (31 N. W. Rep.
177; 64 Mich. 220), 309.
Pendleton v. Smissaert (1 Colo. App.
508; 29 Pac. Rep. 521), 250.
CXXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenees are to sections.
Penhryn Slate Co. v. Meyer (8 Daly,
N. Y., 61), 249.
Pennell v. Delta Co. (94 Mich. 247),
316.
Pennell v. Meyer (8 C. & P. 470), 80.
Pennington v. Gibson (16 How. 65),
242,
Pennsylvania Co. v. Conlan (101 111.
93), 186, 198.
Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan (33 N. E.
Rep. 802), 18, 108.
Pennsylvania Co. v. Horton (132 Ind.
189), 863.
Pennsylvania Co. v. Nevsrmeyer (129
Ind. 401 ; 28 N. E. Rep. 860), 190,
340.
Pennsylvania Co. v. Swan (37 111.
App. 83), 188.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Friend
(Ind., 1893, 30 N. E. Rep. 1116),
186.
Pennsylvania, etc. Co. v. Cook (123
Pa. St. 170), 367.
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Frana (18 111.
App. 91), 237.
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Lyons (18
Atl. Rep. 759; 129 Pa. St. 113),
57.
Penny v. Brink (15 N. C. 68), 276.
Pennypacker v. Leary (65Iowa, 230),
267.
Penruddook v. Hammond (11 Beav.
59), 174.
Penwick v. Kennedy (153 Pa. St.
179), 145.
People V. Abbott (Mich., 1893, 56 N.
W. Rep. 862), 349.
People V. Ah Fat (48 Cal. 61), 355.
People V. Ah Yute (56 Cal. 119), 124.
People V. Augsburg (97 N. Y. 501),
188.
People V. Baker (96 N. Y. 340), 9.
People y. Baker (3 Abb. Pr. 43 ; 3
Park. Crim. Rep. 181), 377.
People V. Barber (115 N. Y. 475), 197,
231.
People V. Barker (60 Mich. 377), 89.
People V. Barrett (56 Hun, 351), 384.
People V. Barton (49 Cal. 632), 89.
People V. Beckwith (108 N. Y. 67), i
People V. Bell (10 Johns. 95), 306.
People V. Bemmerly (87 Cal. 117; 25
Pac. Rep. 266), 101, 103.
People V. Bemmerly (Cal., 1893, 33
Pac. Rep. 263), 349.
People V. Bezy (67 Cal. 383), 10.
People V. Board of Columbia Co. (81
N.-E. Rep. 333; 134 N. Y. 1), 191.
People V. Boggs (30 Cal. 433), 343.
People V. Bollinger (71 Cal. 17), 323.
People V. Bonny (19 Cal. 426), 844.
People V. Brady (72 Cal. 490), 103.
People V. Brewer (53 Hun, 217), 178.
People V. Briggs (60 How. Pr. 17),
176.
People V. Brogle (88 N. Y. 585; 10
Abb. N. C. 300), 346.
People V. Brooklyn (7 N. Y. S. 327),
140.
People V. Brooks (131 N. Y. 321 ; 30
N. E. Rep. 189), 340.
People V. Brotherton (47 Cal. 388),
195.
People V. Brown (46 Hun, 320), 284.
People V. Brown (67 III. 435), 83.
People V. Brown (53 Mich. 531), 188.
People V. Brown (72 N. Y. 571), 846.
People V. Buddenseeck (103 N. Y.
500), 38a, 202.
People V. Bush (71 Cal. 603), 234,
344.
People V. Bushton (80 Cal. 161), 348.
People V. Canadian (4 Utah, 49), 101,
103.
People V. Canvasser (20 N. Y. S. 839),
857.
People V. Carolan (71 Cal. 195), 322,
854.
People V. Carpenter (102 N. Y. 238X
193.
People V. Can- (64 Mich. 702; 81 N.
■ W. Rep. 509), 354.
People V. Cassiday (183 N. Y. 612), 89,
98.
People V, Cassidy (14 N. Y. S. 349).
89.
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferences are to sections.
CXXXV
People V. Chadwiok (35 Pao. Eep.
737), 327.
People V. Chapleau (131 N. Y. 266;
24 N. E. Eep. 469), 350.
People V. Cheeker (61 Cal. 404), 145.
People V. Chegaray (18 Wend., N. Y.,
642), 166.
People V. Chin (51 Cal. 597), 100.
People V. Ching (78 Cal. 389), 335,
350.
People V. Chung (57 Cal. 567), 124,
346.
People V. Cline (44 Mich. 290), 140.
People V. Clark (33 Mioh. 112), 196.
People V. Clough (73 Cal. 348; 15
Pac. Rep. 5), 324,
People V. Cochran (61 Cal. 548), 348,
People V. Cole (43 N. Y. 508), 310.
People V. Collins (64 Cal. 293), 97.
People V. Collins (53 Cal. 1815), 127.
People V. Collins (7 John. 549), 140,
People V. Com. (87 Ky. 487; 9 S. W.
Rep. 509), 101.
People V. Cooper (39 111. 461 ; 29 N.
E. Rep. 872), 371.
People V. Copsey (71 Cal. 548), 316.
People V. Coughlin (35 N. W, Rep.
73; 67 Mich. 466), 93.
People V. Courtney (28 Hun, 589),
324.
People V. Cowgill (93 Cal. 596), 11.
People V. Cox (21 Hun, 47), 50.
People V. Cronin (34 Cal. 191), 381.
People V, Cronise (51 Hun, 489), 362.
People V. Crowley (103 N. Y. 234),
381.
People V. Crowley (Cal., 1893, 35 Pac.
Rep. 84), 354.
People V. Davis (56 N. Y. 96), 103.
People V. Deacons (109 N. Y. 374),
89, 193.
Peojile V. Devine.(46 Cal. 335), 121.
People V. Dohring(59N, Y, 374), 313.
People V. Dowdigau (67 Mich. 95),
333.
People V. Downs (133 N. Y. 558), 249,
People V. Doyell (48 Cal. 85), 350.
People V. Doyle (58 Hun, 535), 346.
People V. Drake (65 Hun, 331), 9.
People V. Druse (103 N. Y. 665), 10.
People V. Durfee (63 Mioh. 487), 331,
232, 369.
People V, Elliott (106 N. Y. 388), 334.
People V. Etter (81 Mich. 570; 45 N.
W. Rep, 1109), 384.
People V. Everhart (104 N. Y, 591 ;
11 N. E, Rep. 63), 315, 324.
People V. Farmer (77 Cal. 1 ; 18 Pac.
Rep. 800), 102.
People V. Fernandez (35 N. Y. 49,
64), 39.
People V. Fine (77 Cal. 147), 88.
People V. Finley (38 Mich. 482), 231.
People V. Fish (135 N. Y. 136), 346.
People V. Fleming (14 N. Y. S. 300),
334.
People V. Foley (27 "Weekly Dig., N.
Y., 217), 345.
People V. Fong Ah Sing_(70 Cal. 8),
103, 333.
People V. Foote (93 Mich. 38), 846.
People V. Formosa (131 N. Y. 478;
30 N. E. Rep. 492), 10, 23, 343.
People v.-Fox (34 N. E. Rep. 933 ; 3
N. Y. S. 359), 89.
People V. Foy (34 N. E. Rep. 390;
138 N. Y. 664), 231.
People V. Frindel (58 Hun, 482), 319.
People V. Gallagher (75 Mich. 512),
89, 172, 334.
People V. Garbutt (17 Mich. 9), 9.
People V. Garcia (35 Cal. 531), 74.
People V. Gardner (33 Pac. Rep. 880 ;
98 Cal. 127), 346.
People V. Gastro (75 Mich. 127), 89.
People V. Geiger (49 Cal. 643), 70.
People V. Gibbons (43 Cal. 557), 93.
People V. Gibbs (93 N. Y. 473), 9.
People V. Gilon (18 Civ. Pro. R. 109),
171.
People V. Glenn (10 Cal. 33), 103.
People Y. Goldenson (76 Cal. 338),
189, 340, 345.
People V. Gonzalez (35 N. Y. 49), 39,
193.
People V. Graney (91 Mich. 646), 334.
CXXXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
People V. Green ^«9 Cal. 564; 34Pac.
Rep. 231), 315.
People V. Green (1 Park. Cr. Gas. 11),
80.
People V. Green (1 Denio, N. Y., 614),
166.
PeopJe V. Greenfield (30 N. Y. Sup.
Ct. 462; 85 N. Y. 75, 83), 193.
People V. Hanifan (Mich., 1893, 56
N. W. Eep. 1048), 341.
People V. Harris (95 Mich. 87; 54 N.
W. Eep. 645), 10.
People V. Harris (136 N. Y. 423), 178,
188.
People V. Harris (4 Denio, N. Y., 150),
281.
People V. Harrison (53 N. W. Rep.
735; 93 Mich. 594), 350, 354.
People V. Hayes (24 N. Y. S. 194),
383.
People V. Haynes (11 Wend., N. Y.,
565), 23.
People V. Henjiessy (15 Wend. 147),
93.
People V. Hess (85 Mich. 128 ; 48 N.
W. Rep. 181), 346.
People V. Hibernia Sav. Bank (84
Cal. 634), 116.
People V. Hilhouse (80 Mich. 580),
340.
People V. Hinchman (75 Mich. 587),
93.
People V. Hite (Utah, 1893, 33 Pac.
Rep. 354), 354.
People V. Holbrook (13 Johns. 90),
35.
People V. Holf elder (5 N. Y. Crim.
R. 179), 186.
People V. Honeyman (3 Den., N. Y.,
121), 23.
People V. Hong (93 Cal. 41 ; 27 Pac.
Rep. 1096), 378.
People V. Hope (63 Cal. 391), 202.
People V. Howes (81 Mich. 396 ; 45
N. W. Rep. 961), 89.
People V. Hughes (41 Cal. 234), 23.
People V. Hulbut (4 Denio, N. Y.,
133), 176.
People V. Hull (86 Mich. 449), 334.
People V. Irwin (77 Cal. 494), 93.
People V. Jaehne(7 N. E. Eep. 290;
108 N. Y. 183), 324.
People V. Johnson (N. Y., 1893, 65
N. E. Rep. 604), 39.
People V. Johnson (41 Cal. 453), 90.
People V. Judge (41 Mich. 726), 375.
People V. Kelley (47 Cal. 125), 93.
People T. Kelly (24 N. Y. 74), 332,
354a.
People V. Kemmler (119 N. Y. 585),
178.
People V. Kent Circuit Judge (41
Mich. 723), 150a.
People V. Kenyon (93 Mich. 19), 384.
People V. Kern (Utah, 1893, 30 Pac.
Rep. 988), 6.
People V. Kerr (6 N. Y. S. 674), 69.
People V. Kerr (6 N. Y. Crim. R.
406), 6.
People V. Kerrigan (14 Pac. Rep. 566 ;
73 Cal. 323), 331.
People V. Kline (83 Cal. 374), 333.
People V. Knapp (26 Md. 112), 102.
People V. Lake (12 N. Y. 358), 197.
People V. Lange (90 Mich. 454), 333.
People V. Langtree (64 Cal. 256), 823.
People V. Lee (49 Cal. 37), 280.
People V. Lee Chuck (74 Cal. 30; 15
Pac. Rep. 333), 102.
People V. Lem You (97 Cal. 334 ; 32
Pac. Rep. 11), 124.
People V. Levire (85 Cal. 39 ; 24 Pac.
Rep. 631), 201.
People V. Levy (71 Cal. 618), 188, 197.
People V. Loui (27 Pac. Rep. 395; 90
Cal. 377), 378.
People V. Lowrey (70 Cal. 193), 344.
People V. Mahoney (77 Cal. 529), 343.
People V. Man. Co. (9 Wend. 351),
231.
People V. Marseilles (70 Cal. 98), 188,
377.
People V. Mather (4 Wend. 257, 258),
349, 354.
People V. Matteson (3 Cowen, 433,
473), 316.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXXVIl
References are to sections.
People V. Matterson (17 111. 167), 140.
People V. McCann (16 N. Y. 66), 247.
People V. McCarthy (110 N. Y. 309),
349.
People V. McCormack (135 N. Y. 663),
346.
People V. McCoy (45 How. Pr., N. Y.,
216), 203.
People V. McCrea (33 Cal. 98), 52.
People V. McDonell (47 Cal. 131), 231.
People V. McGloin (91 N. Y. 341), 93.
People V. MoGonegal (136 N. Y. 62),
196, 333.
People V. McGuire (135 N. Y. 639),
328.
People V. McKellar (53 Cal. 65), 844.
People V. McLean (84 Cal. 480), 11.
People V. McLean (71 Mich. 309), 10.
People V. McNair (31 Wend. 608),
819.
People V. McNamara (94 Cal. 509),
341.
People V. McQuade (110 N. Y. 284),
769.
People V. McQuaid (85 Mich. 123; 48
N. W. Rep. 161), 187.
People V. Mead (50 Mich. 228), 8,
802.
People V. Millard (53 Mich. 68), 7,
194.
People V. Millard (5 Crim. L. Mag.
588), 188.
People V. Miller (3 Park. Or. Cas.
35), 313.
People V. Mills (94 Mich. 680), 10,
850.
People V. Minaugh (181 N. Y. 563),
11.
People V. Mining Co. (66 Cal. 138),
. 239.
People V. Mitchell (94 Cal. 550), 89.
People V. Mitchell (55 Cal. 286), 229.
People V. Molaspina (57 Cal. 628), 6.
People V. Molins (10 N. Y. S. 130),
323.
People V. Mondon (103 N. Y. 214), 93.
People V. Monroe (Cal., 1893, 83 Pac.
Rep. 776), 336.
People T. Montgomery (13 Abb. Pr.,
N. a, 207, 240), 191.
People V. Monteith (73 Cal. 7), 186.
People V. Morrow (60 Cal. 143), 5.
People V. Murphy (45 Cal. 137), 134,
166.
People V. Murphy (135 N. Y. 450 ; 33
N. E. Rep. 138), 139a.
People V. Murray (123 N. Y. 160)^
140.
People V. Murray (57 Mich. 396),
143a.
People V. Murray (53 Mich. 388), 102,
340.
People V. N. Y. Cent. R. Co. (39 N.
Y. 431), 886.
People V. N. Y. Hospital (3 Abb.
N. C. 229), 317.
People V. Noelke (94 N. Y. 137),
127.
People V. Northey (77 Cal. 618), 334.
People V. Nyce (34 Hun, 298), 250.
People V. O'Brien (Mich., 1893, 56 N.
W. Rep. 72), 354.
People V. O'Brien (96 Cal. 171), 9,
349.
People V. O'Brien (60 Mich. 8), 324.
People V. Ogle (104 N. Y. 511), 88.
People V. Oliver (4 Utah, 460), 384.
People V. Olmstead (80 Mich. 435),
100, 103.
People V. O'Neil (109 N. Y. 251), 322,
824, 351.
People V. O'Neill (48 Hun, 36), 324.
People V. O'Sullivan (104 N. Y. 498),
752.
People V. Oyer & T. (83 N. Y. 436),
335, 354a.
People V. Packenham(115 N. Y. 200),
197.
People V. Page (1 Idaho, 194), 374.
People V. Pallister (138 N. Y. 601), 6,
234.
People V. Parker (67 Mich. 333; 84
N. W. Rep. 730), 140.
People V. Parton (49 Cal. C32), 342.
People V. Paton (20 N. Y. 195), 11.
People V. Pearsall (50 Mich. 233), 6.
CXXXVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
People V, Pease (S7 N. Y. 45), 231,
250.
People V. Penhallow (42 Hun, 103),
846.
People V. Perini (94 Cal. 573), 249.
People V. Penym an (72 Mich. 184;
40 N. W. Eep. 425), 190.
People V. Petmecky (99 N. Y. 415),
351.
People V. Pine (2 Barb. 566), 11.
People T. Potter (35 Cal. 110), 242.
People V. Powell (87 Cal. 348), 88.
People V. Pyper (6 Utah, 160 ; 21
Pac. Rep. 722), 277.
People V. Ramirez (73 Cal. 403), 101.
People V. Reggel (8 Utah, 21; 28
Pac. Eep. 955), 176.
People V. Rice (10 N. Y. S. 270), 332.
People V. Robinson (2 Park. Cr. Cas.
236), 195.
People V. Robinson (26 How. Pr. 90),
356.
People V. Rodrigo (69 Cal. 601), 322,
354.
People V. Rogers (21 Wend., N. Y.,
518), 356.
People V. Rogers (18 N. Y. 9), 89.
People V. Rohl (138 N. Y. 616), 11.
Pepple V. Ryan (28 Hun, 568), 334.
People V. Ryan (55 Hun, 214), 349.
People V. Samario (81 Cal. 484), 101.
People V. Sam Lung (70 Cal. 516),
330.
People V. Saro Bo (73 Cal. 623), 101.
People V. Sliney (137 N. Y. 570), 178.
People V. Smalling (94 Cal. 112), 88a.
People V. Scoggins (37 Cal, 683), 10.
People V. Schuyler (106 N. Y. 298,
303), 178, 197.
People V. Sessions (58 Mich. 594),
193.
People V. Shattuck (6 Abb. N. C. 33),
176.
People V. Shaw (63 N. Y. 40), 103.
People V. Sheriff (39 Barb. 633), 174,
People V. Sherman (61 Hun, 628; 133
N. Y. 849), 337.
People V. Sligh (48 Mich. 54), 124.
People V. Smith (104 N. Y. 491), 101,
103, 363.
People V. Smith (98 Cal. 318; 33 Pac.
Rep. 58), 324.
People V. Smith (94 N. Y. 649), 323.
People V. Snyder (41 N. Y. 397), 229,
238, 239.
People V. Soto (49 Cal. 69), 89.
People V. Spies (133 111. 1), 846.
People V. Stanley (47 Cal. 113), 68,
69.
People V. Stewart (28 Cal. 895), 10.
People V. Stewart (75 Mich. 31), 91.
People V. Stewart (97 111. 133), 340.
People V. Stewart (97 Cal. 233 ; 33
Pac. Rep. 8), 52.
People V. Suppiger (103 111. 434>,
239.
People V. Sweethand (77 Mich. 53),
89, 142.
People V. Taylor (59 Cal. 640), 101.
People V, Taylor (93 Mich. 638), 89.
People V. Taylor (138 N. Y. 398), 203,
249.
People V. Teagua(ll S. E. Rep. 665;
106 N. C. 576), 854a.
People V. Thomas (93 Cal. 506), 340.
People V. Thompson (85 Cal. 598), 96,
359. ,
People V. Thornton (74 Cal. 48), 843.
People V. Tice (131 N. Y. 651), 846.
People V. Tiley (84 Cal. 651), 354.
People V. Townsend (5 How. Pr.,
■ N. Y., 815), 315.
People V. Trayers (88 Cal. 238), 249.
People V. Turcott (65 Cal. 126), 334.
People V. Tyler (35 Cal. 553), 349.,
People V. Urquidas (96 Cal. 339),
378.
People V. Vanderhoof (39 N. W. Rep.
38; 71 Mich. 158), 189.
People V. Van Houter (38 Hun, 168),
334.
People V. Van Tassell (64 Hun, 444),
284.
People V. Vedder (98 N. Y. 630), 196.
People V. Vellarde (59 Cal. 457), 110.
People V. Vernon (35 Cal. 49), 57.
TABLE OV CASES.
CXXXIX
Eeferences are to sections.
People V. Warner (51 Hun, PS), 33a.
People V, Warner (.i Wend., 273), 22,
People V. Webster (N. Y., 1893, 34
N, E. Rep. 730), 350, 354.
People V. Weldon (lU N. Y. 569),
239, 367.
People V. Whipple (9 Cowen, 707),
323.
People V. White (63 Hun, 114), 227.
People V. White (14 Wend., N. Y.,
Ill), 367.
People V. Willard (93 Cal. 483), 334.
People V. Williams (18 Cal. 187), 340.
People V. Williams (64 Cal. 87), 30,
339.
People V. Wilson (63 Hun, 618), 141.
People V. Wilson (109 N. Y. 345), 192.
People V. Wong (10 Pac, Rep. 275;
69 Cal. 180), 6,
People V. Wood (126 N. Y. 249; 37
N. E. Rep. 363), 167, 334.
People V. Wood (131 N. Y. 617),
239.
People V. Wreden (59 Cal. 392), 197.
People V. Wright (90 Mich. 363), 39,
384.
People V. Young (31 Cal. 568), 176.
People V. Yut Ling (74 Cal. 569), 344.
People's Nat. Gas Co. v. Braddock
Wire Co. (155 Pa. St. 33; 35 Atl.
Rep. 749), 206.
People's Nat. Gas Co. v. Fidelity Tit.
& Trust Co. (150 Pa. St. 8; 34
Atl. Rep. 339), 206.
Peoria, etc. Co. v. Rice (144 111. 237 ;
33 N. E, Rep. 951), 303.
Peoria, etc. Co. v. Scott (116 111. 401),
343.
Pepper v. Barnett (23 Gratt., Va.,
405), 139.
Perego v. Purdy (1 Hilton, 269), 80.
Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W.
(Minn., 1893, 53 N. W. Rep. 367),
■ 250.
Perishable Freight T. Co. v. O'Neill
(41 111. App. 433), 350.
Perkins v. Augusta Ins. Co. (10 Gray,
313), 198.
J
Perkins v. Burnett (3 Root, Conn.,
30), 70.
Perkins v. Concord Road (44 N. H.
333), 71.
Perkins v. Graham (18 Ala. 833), 71.
Perkins v. Perkins (39 N. H. 163),
331, 350, 253.
Perkins v. Pluukett (74 Me. 328),
24.
Perkins v. Rogers (35 Ind. 124), 238.
Perkins v. State (133 Mass. 317), 188.
Perkins v. State (4 Ind. 333), 176.
Perkins v. Stickney (133 Mass. 317),
188.
.Perkins v. Woodfolk (8 Baxt. 4nX
340, 241.
Perrin v. Wells (155 Pa. St. 399),
133.
Perrine v. Cooley (39 N. J. L. 449),
209.
Perritt v. Couch (5 Bush, 201), 337.
Perry v. Binney (103 Mass. 153), 310.
Perry v. Boomhauer (17 N. Y. S.
890), 283.
Perry v. Gerbeau (5 Mart., N. S., 18,
19), 81.
Perry v. Gibson (1 Ad. & El. 48),
339.
Perry v. Jensen (31 Atl. Rep. 866; 28
W. N. C. 136), 187.
Perry v. Scott (109 N. C. 374), 320.
Perry v. Simpson Mfg. Co. (40 Conn.
313), 74.
Perry v. State (87 Ala. 30), 6.
Perry v. State (94 Ala. 25), 10.
Perse v. Perse (5 H. L. Cas. 671),
287.
Person v. Grier (66 N. Y. 124), 286.
Pete V. State (44 La. Ann. 14), 53.
Peterman v. Laws (6 Leigh, Va.,
523), 149.
Peters v. Bourneau (22 111. App. 177),
11.
Peters v. Jones (35 Iowa, 412), 83,
83.
Peters v. Lawson (66 Tex. 336), 74.
Peters v. Porter (60 How. Pr., N. Y.,
432), 833.
cxl
TABLE OF OASES.
Peters v. Warren Ins. Co. (3 Suinn.
389), 158.
Peteisen v. Siglinger (S. D., 1893, 53
N. W. Rep. 1060), 343.
Peterson v. Grover (20 Me. 463), 223.
Petrie v. Fitzgerald (1 Daly, N. Y.,
401), 287.
Petrie v. Petrie (6 N. Y. S. 831; 53
Hun, 638), 309.
Petrie v. Eaihvajr Co. (39 S. C. 303 ;
7 S. E. Rep. 815), 121.
Petrie v. "Williams (68 Hun, 589),
67.
Pettit V. May (34 Wis. 660), 243.
Peugh V. Davis (96 U. S. 332), 233.
Peyroud v. Howard (7 Pet. 342), 239.
Peyser v. Myers (63 Hun, 634), 56.
Pharo V. Beadleston (31 N. Y, £>■
989), 370.
Phelps V. Foot (1 Conn. 387), 51.
Phelps T. George's Creek (60 Md.
536), 73a.
Phelps V. James (Iowa, 1893, 53
N. W. Rep. 74), 73a.
Phelps V. Railroad Co. (94 111. 548),
83.
Phelps, In re (98 N. Y, 267), 3C9.
Phenix Ins. Co. v. Bowersox (6 Ohio
Cir. Ct. 1), 199.
Phenix Ins: Co. v. Copeland (86 Ala,
551), 199.
Phetti place v. N. Pac. R. Co. (84
Wis. 412 ; 54 N. W. Rep. 1092),
20.
Phifer v. Erwin (100 N. C. 59; 6 S.
E. Rep. 673), 350.
Philadelphia v. Newcumet (11 Pa.
Co. Ct. Rep. 504), 150a.
Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Henrice (93
Pa. St. 431), 13.
Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Hickman
(28 Pa. St. 318), 133.
Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Howard (13
How., U. S., 307), 138.
Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Stimpson (4
Peters, 461), 350.
Philadelphia R, Co. v, Lehman (58
Md. 209), 337.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Philips V. El well (14 Ohio St. 240),
150a.
Phillips V. Chappell (16 Ga. 16), 315.
Phillips V. Huntington (35 W. Va.
406), 33.
Phillips V. Kingfield (1 Appleton,
375), 349.
Phillips V. Marblehead (148 Mass.
329), 340.
Phillips V. McGrath (63 Wis. 124),
309.
Phillips V. McNab (9 N. Y. S. 530),
199.
Phillips V. Smith (110 Mass. 61), 76.
Phillips V. State (23 Tex. App. 339),
384.
Phillips V. Terry (3 Abb. Dec, N.
Y., 607), 193.
Phillips V. Trow. Fur. Co. (86 Ga.
699), 130.
Philpot V. Taylor (75 111. 309), 69.
Phipard v. Phipard (55 Hun, 433),
246.
Phoenix Ins. Co. of London v. Freed-
man (Tex., 1893, 19 S. W. Rep.
1010), 369.
Piatt V. United States (33 Wall. 496),
215.
Pickard v. Daily (6 Fost., N. H., 152),
143.
Pickard v. Bryant (53 N. W. Rep.
788; 93 Mich. 430), 337, 340, 348.
Pickering v. Fisk (6 Vt. 102), 343.
Pickering v. Pickering (50 N. H. 349),
331.
Pickett V. Abney (81 Tex. 645 ; 19 S.
W. Rep. 859), 35.
Pickett V. Ferguson (45 Ark. 177),
305.
Pickett V. Nelson (79 Wis. 9), 320.
Pidcock V. Potter (68 Pa. St. 342),
193.
Pierce v. Andrews (6 Cush. 4), 84.
Pierce v. Brewer (43 Vt. 393), 208.
Pierce v. Goldsberg (35 Ind. 317), 79.
Pierce v. Indseth (106 U. S. 555), 143,
243.
Pierce v. Jacobs (7 Mackey, .498), 53.
TABLK OF CASES.
cxli
Eeferences are to sections.
Pierce v. Newton (13 Gray, 528), 350.
Pierce v. Nortliey (U Wis. 9), 139a.
Pierce v. Pierce (60 N. H. 355), 77.
Pierce v. Roberts (57 Conn. 40), 68.
Pierce v. State (Tex. , 1893, 23 S. W.
Rep. 587), 6.
Pierce v. Stevens (30 Me. 184), 312.
Pierce v. Tedwell (81 Ala. 299), 213.
Pierce v. Traver (13 Nev. 526), S23.
Pierce v. Wood (23 N. H. 579), 69.
Pierson v. Oonley (Mich., 1893, 55 N.
W. Rep. 387), 153.
Pierson v. Hoolter (3 Johns., N. Y.,
68), 69.
Pierson v. People (79 N. Y. 434), 173,
202.
Pike V. Gage (9 Post., N. H., 461),
79.
Pike V. State (49 N. H. 399), 185.
Pillsbury v. Locke (33 N. H. 96), 217.
Pilcher v. Kerr (7 La. Ann. 344), 70.
Pilcher v. Ligon (91 Ky. 228), 154.
Pinson v. Ivey (1 Yerg. 296). 222.
Piper V. True (36 Cal. 600), 222.
Pinney v. CahlU (48 Mich. 584), 189.
Pinney v. Will (27 Minn. 280), 197.
Pittman v. State (Ga., 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 856), 9, 333.
Pitton V. Walter (1 Stra. 162). 146.
Pitts V. Brown (49 Vt. 83), 136.
Pitts V. Emmons (93 Mich. 542), 126.
Pitts V. Lewis (Sljowa, 51 ; 46 N. W.
Rep. 739), 124.
Pitts, In re (Wis., 1893, 55 N. W.
Rep. 149), 169.
Pittsburgh, etc. Co. v. McGrath (115
111. 172), 123.
Pittsburgh, etc. Co. v. Reich (101
111. 157), 198.
Pittsburgh & L. S. Iron Co. v. Kirk-
patrlck (93 Mich. 352), 73a.
Plake V. State (121 Ind. 433), 231.
Planet, etc. Co. v. Railroad Co. (115
Mo. 613; 23 S. W. Rep. 616). 83.
Plank-road Co. v. Wetsel (31 Baib.
56), 128.
Piano Co. V. Root (N. D., 1893, 54
N. W. Rep. 934), 234.
Piano Mfg. Co. v. Frawley (68 Wis.
577; 33 N. W. Rep. 768), 170.
Plant V. Condit (22 Ark. 454), 208.
Plant V. McEwen (4 Conn. 544), 73.
Plainer v. Plainer (78 N. Y. 90), 66,
70.
Piatt V. Munroe (34 Barb., N. Y.,
393), 386.
Platto V. Gettelman (Wis., 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 167), 83.
Plaxton V. Dare (10 B. & C. 17), 116.
Pleasant v. State (15 Ark. 624), 330.
Pledger v. State (77 Ga. 242), 333.
Plumer v. Currier (53 N. H. 337), 76.
Plummer v. Gould (93 Mich. 1), 210.
Plunkett V. Cobbett (29 How. St. Tr.
71, 72), 175.
Plyer v. German Am. Ins. Co. (131
N. Y. 689), 351.
Poe V. State (10 Lea, Tenn., 673), 5.
Poignard v. Smith (8 Pick. 278), 304.
Pole V. Rogers (3 Bing. N. C. 780),
359.
Polk V. Butterfield (9 Colo. 825), 343.
Polk V. State (36 Ark. 117), 195.
Pollard V. Seybourn (1 Hagg. 75), 203.
Polleys V. Ocean Ins. Co. (14 Me.
141), 73a.
Pollock V Glassell (2 Gratt. 439), 210.
Pollock V. Warwick (104 N. C. 638),
223.
Poison V. State (Ind., 1893, 35 N. E.
Rep. 907), 168.
Polston V. See (46 Iowa, 30), 6.
Pomeroy v. Bailey (43 N. H. 118),
308.
Pomeroy v. Com. (3 Va. Cas. 343),
23.
Pool V. Gramling (88 Ga. 653), 333.
Pool V. Morris (29 Ga. 374), 67.
Poole V. East Tenn. etc. Co. (Ga.,
1893, 17 S. E. Rep. 267), 56.
Poole V. Richardson (3 Mass. 330),
197.
Poor V. Oakman (154 Mass. 316), 262.
Poorman v. Miller (44 Cal. 269), 31.
Pope V. Allen (90 N. Y. 298), 309.
Pope V. Allis (115 U. S. 363), 76.
cxlii
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Pope V. Harrison (16 Lea, Tenn., 82),
333.
Pope V. Negus (14 Civ. Pro. Rep.
406), 285.
Porter v. Christian (88 Va. 730), 382.
Porter v. Ferguson (4 Fla. 103), 130.
Porter V. Nelson (121 Pa. St. 640),
309.
Porter v. Sherman Co. Banlting Co.
(36 ^eb. 271 ; 55 N. W. Rep. 234),
380.
Porter v. Seller (23 Pa. St. 424), 9.
Porter v. State (76 Ga. 658), 324.*
Porter v. State (2 Ind. 435), 330.
Porter v. State (55 Ala. 93), 6, 90.
Porter v. Still (63 Miss. 357), 254.
Porter v. Waring (69 N. Y. 250), 242.
Porter v. Wilson et al. (13 Pa. St.
641), 132.
Posey V. Patton (109 N. C. 455), 343.
Potter V. Baldwin (133 Mass. 427), 51.
Potter V. Deyo (19 Wend. 361), 250.
Potter V. Luther (3 Johns. 431), 244.
Potter V. Merchants' Bank (28 N. Y.
641), 199.
Potter V. Ware (1 Cush. 519, 524),
312.
Potter's Appeal (53 Mich. 106), 223.
Potts V. House (6 Ga. 324), 197.
Potts V. Jones (140 Pa. St. 48), 11.
Potts V. Mayer (86 N. Y. 302), 308.
Potts V. State (26 Tex. App. 663 ; 14
S. W. Rep. 446), 93.
Potwin V. Johnson (108 111. 70), 242.
Pouoher v. State (98 N. Y. 423), 230.
Pound V. State (43 Ga. 88), 10.
Powell V. Brunner (86 Ga. 531), 67.
Powell V. Manson (3 Mason, 347), 315.
Powell V. Railroad Co. (77 Ga. 192),
193.
Powell V. State (35 Ala. 28), 197.
Powell V. Turner (139 Mass. 97), 373.
Powell V. Waters (17 Johns. 176),
237.
Powers V. Braley (41 Mo. App. 556),
829.
Powers V. McKenzie (80 Tenn. 167),
.846.
Powers V. People (43 111. App. 437),
56.
Powers V. Presgroves (38 Miss. 237),
10.
Powers V. Savin (28 Abb. N. C. 463),
60.
Powers V. Sheperd (21 N. H. 60), 360.
Powers V. State (80 Ind. 77), 348.
Powers V. State (87 Ind. 144), 101.
Powers V. State (44 Ga. 209), 324.
Prairie Soh. Tp. v. Haselen (N. D.,
1893, 55 N. W. Rep. 938), 311.
Prather v. Johnson (3 Har. & J.,Md.,
487), 143.
Prather v. Wilkins (68 Tex. 187), 33.
Pratt v. Andrews (4 Comst., N. Y.,
493), 10.
Pratt V. California M. Co. (34 Fed.
Rep. 869), 333.
Pratt V. Elkins (SO N. Y. 198), 309.
Pratt v. King (1 Oreg. 49), 148.
Pratt V. Wliite (133 Mass. 477), 60.
Prell V. McDonald (7 Kan. 446),
143a, 343.
Prendible v. Conn. R. R. Co. (Mass.,
1893, 35 N. E. Rep. 675), 198.
Prentiss v. Bates (88 Mich. 567), 188,
223.
Prentiss v. Bates (93 Mich. 234), 248.
Prentiss v. Parks (65 Me. 559), 233.
Prescot V. Ganser (34 Iowa, 175), 140.
Presley v. Grand Trunk R. Co. (23
Atl. Rep. 554), 8.
Brest V. Mersereau (10 N. J. L. 268),
60.
Preston v. Hall (23 Gratt., Va., 600),
268.
Preston v. Harvey (2 H. & M. 55),
160.
Prewet v. Coopwood (30 Miss. 369),
67.
Prewet v. Land (36 Miss. 495), 67.
Prewitt V. Lambert (Colo., 1893, 34
Pac. Rep. 684), 309.
Price V. Archuleta (17 Colo. 388; 39
Pac. Rep. 460), 249.
Price V. Conn. M. L. Ins. Co. (48 Mo.
App. 281), 237.
TABLE OF CASES.
ex. Ill
Keferences are to sections.
Price V. Grover (40 Md. 208), 222.
Price V. Havtson (44 N. Y. 94), 198.
Price V. Kane (113 Mo. 413), 246.
Price V. Littlewood (3 Camp. 288),
114.
Price V. Page (24 Mo. 65), 239.
Price V. People (131 HI. 22,3), 283.
Price V. Perkins (2 Dev. Eq., N, C,
250), 315.
Price V. Powell (3 N. Y. 322), 198.
Price V. Richmond & D. R. Co. (S. C,
1893, 17 S. E. Rep. 733), 198.
Price V. State (72 Ga. 441), 102.
Pride V. Lunt (19 Me. 115), 220.
Bi-iest V. State (10 Neb. 393), 93, 97.
Prigden v. Green (80 Ga. 737; 7 S. E.
Rep. 97), 108.
Prill v; Denhead (8 Sim. 379), 158.
Primm v. Stewart (7 Tex. 178), 53.
Prince v. Samo (7 Ad. & El. 627),
341.
Prince v, Skellin (71 Me. 361), 288,
240.
Prince v. Smith (4 Mass. 455), 60.
Prince v. State (73 Ga. 441), 102.
Printup V. Mitchell (17 Ga. 558), 129.
Printz V. People (43 Mich. 144), 199.
Prior V. State (Ala., 1893, 13 S. Rep.
681), 346.
Pritchard v. Norwood (155 Mass.
539), 35.
Pritcliard v. Pritchard (69 "Wis. 373),
309.
Pritchard v. Smith (77 Ga. 463), 128.
Probert v. McDonald (S. D., 1893, 51
N. W. Rep. 313), 250.
Probert v. Phipps (149 Mass. 358), 201.
Procter v. Cole (66 Ind. 576), 205.
Proctor V. Old Colony R. Co. (154
Mass. 251), 74.
Proctor V. Snodgrass (6 Ohio Cir. Ct.
Rep. 547), 206.
Propeller Commerce, In re (1 Black,
580), 158.
Proper v. State (Wis., 1893, 53 N. W.
Rep. 1035), 335.
Propson V. Lathem (80 Wis. 608), 8.
Frouty v. Ruggles (3 Story, 199), 360.
Prov. etc. Co. v. Worcester (155
' Mass. 35), 8.
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Fredericks (41
111. App. 19), 73.
Pryor v. Roburn (16 Ark. 671), 166.
Publishers' Ass'n v. Fisher (95 Mich.
274 ; 54 N. W. Rep. 759), 60.
Pucci V. Barney (31 N. Y. S. 1099),
216.
Puget Sound R. Co. v. IngersoU (4
Wash. St. 675), 380.
Pugh V. Ayres (47 Mo. App. 490),
367.
Pugh V, Good (19 Oreg. 85; 33 Pac.
Rep. 837), 376.
Pugh V. Little Rock (35 Ark. 75),
143a.
Pugh V. State (3 Head, 327), 244.
Pullen V. Pullen (43 N. J. Eq. 139),
322, 341, 356.
Pulley V. Hilton (13 Pries, 635), 142.
Pulliam V. State (6 S. Rep. 839; 88
Ala. 1), 101.
Pullman v. Corning (14 Barb. 174 ; 9
N. Y. 93), 199.
Pullman v. Smith (79 Tex. 468), 52.
Purcell V. Miner (4 Wall. 517), 262.
Purdy V. Delavan (1 Caines, 304), 77.
Puryear v. Com. (83 Va. 51), 330.
Puryear v. State (63 Ga. 692), 134.
Putnam v. Bond (100 Mass. 58), 217.
Putnam v. Wadley (40 111. 346), 139.
Puyar v. Reese (46 Tenn. 21), 197.
Pyburn v. State (84 Ga. 193), 383.
Pye V. Bakke (Minn., 1893, 55 N. W.
Rep. 904), 339, 340.
Q.
Quackenbush v. Railroad Co. (73
Iowa, 458), 145.
Quaife v. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (48
Wis. 513), 52, 193.
Queen t. Bell (22 N. Y. S. 398), 377.
Queener v. Morrow (1 Coldvv., Tenn.,
123), 71.
Queen Ins. Co. v. Studebaker (117
Ind. 416), 384.
cxliv
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Queen's Case (2 Brod. & Bing. 284),
315.
Querry v. White (1 Bibb, Ky., 371),
311.
Quigley v. De Hass (98 Pa. St. 392),
217.
Quigley v. Turner (150 Mass. 108),
333.
Quimby v. Boyd (8 Cal. 194), 135.
Quin V. State (46 Ind. 459), 234.
Quinland v. State (16 S. W. Rep. 258;
39 Tex. App. 401), 89.
Quinland v. Utica (74 N. Y. 603), 8.
Quinn v. Roath (37 Conn. 16), 333.
Quinu V. Halbert (57 Vt. 178), 184.
Quinn v. Higgins (63 Wis. 664), 188,
193.
Quinn v. People (15 N. E. Rep. 46;
133 111, 333), 346.
R.
Rabsuhl V. Lack (35 Mo. 316), 308.
Raekleflf v. Norton (19 Me. 374), 136.
Radcliff V. Insurance Co. (7 Johns.
38), 144,
Ragan v. Kansas City & S. E. R.
Co. {Ill Mo. 456), 199.
Ragland v. Wynn (37 Ala. 33), 340.
Rahm v. Deig (131 Ind. 383), 73a.
Raiford v. French (11 Rich., S. C,
367), 73a.
Railing v. Com. (113 Pa. St. 87),
101.
Railroad Co. v. Chenoa (48 III. 209),
242.
Railroad Co. v. Clowdis (90 Ga. 258 ;
17 S. E. Rep. 88), 56.
Railroad Co. v. Davis (1 Gray, 88),
350.
Railroad Co. v. Farmer (Ala., 1898,
12 S. Rep. 86), 24.
Railroad Co. v. Finlay (38 Kan. 550 ;
16 Pac. Rep. 951), 185.
Railroad Co. v. Hickman (28 Pa. St.
318), 139.
Railroad Co. v. Johnson (Ga., 1893,
16 S. E. Rep. 49), 143a.
Railroad Co. v. Levy (Ind., 1893, 33
N. E. Rep. 815), 73a.
Railroad Co. v. Martin (113 111. 16),
193.
Railroad Co. v. Owen (90 Ga. 265 ; 15
S. E. Rep. 853), 250.
Railroad Co. v. Plumas Co. (37 Cal.
354), 243.
Railroad Co. v. Randall (85 Ga. 897),
341.
Railway Co. v. Rhea (44 Ark. 258,
264), 249.
Railroad Co. v. Selby (47 Ind. 471), 8.
Railroad Co. v. Shornter (13 La. Ann.
136), 148.
Railroad Co. v. Ward (35 111. App.
423), 73a.
Railsback v. Patton (34 Neb. 490; 52
N. W. Rep. 377), 325.
Rainey v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. (23
N. Y. S. 80; 68 Hun, 495), 368.
Rains v. State (88 Ala. 91), 6, 354a.
Ralfe V. Dart (2 Taunt. 521), 146.
Ralston v. Miller (3 Rand., Va., 44),
115.
Ralston v. Moore (83 Ky. 571), 136.
Rambler v. Tryson (7 S. & R. 90),
197.
Ramsbottom v. Phelps (18 Conn.
278), 69.
Ramsey v. Hurley (73 Tex. 1194),
50.
Ramson v. Adams (17 Johns., N. Y.,
130), 229.
Ranch v. N. Y., L. & W. R. R. Co.
(3 N. Y. S. 108), 199.
Rand v. Hanson (154 Mass. 88 ; 38 N.
E. Rep. 6), 148.
Randall v. Baird (66 Mich. 312; 33
N. W. Rep. 506), 34.
Randall v. Gurney (3 B. & A. 253),
386.
Randall v. Lynch (3 Camp. 353, 357),
83.
Randall v. Packard (20 N. Y. S. 716),
199, 373.
Randall v. State (33 N. E. Sep. 305;
132 Ind, 539), 346, 349.
TABLE OF OASES.
cxlv
References are to sections.
Randegger v. Ehrhardt (51 111. 101),
70.
Randell v. Biirtis (57 Tex. 363), 148.
Randell v. Hodges (3 Bland, 47), 150.
Randolph v. Adams (3 W. Va. 519),
198.
Raner v. Timerson (51 Barb. 517),
84.
Rank v. Grote (110 N. Y. 13), 313,
268, 309.
Rankin v. Bell (19 S. W. Rep. 874,
Tex., 1893), 239.
Rankin v. Hannan (38 Ohio St. 438),
308.
Rankin v. Wallace (Ky., 1890, 14 S.
W. Rep. 79), 208,
Ranson v. State (40 Ark. 176). 331.
Raper v. Birkbeck (15 East, 17), 138.
Rapley v. Klugh (S. C, 1894, 18 S.
E. Rep. 680), 320.
Rapple, In re (66 Hun, 558), 233.
Raridan v. Railroad (69 Iowa, 537),
237.
Rash V. State (61 Ala. 89), 193, 194.
Rates V. Robinson (8 Iowa, 318;, 357.
Rathburn v. Acker (18 Barb. 375),
279.
Rattarre v. Chapman (79 Ga. 574),
349.
Ravisies v. Alston (5 Ala. 297), 128.
Rawls V. Am. L. Ins. Co. (36 Barb.
357; 27 N. Y. 282), 194, 200.
Rawson v. Knight (73 Me. 340), 309.
Ray V. Ray (98 N. C. 566), 188.
Ray V. Simmons (11 R. I. 266), 265.
Ray V. State (1 Greene, Iowa, 316),
333.
Ray V. Stewart (105 N. C. 478), 143.
Raymond v. Coffey (5 Greg. 133),
230.
Raymond v. Cottier (8 Pick. 393,
' 296), 143.
Raymond v. Krauskopf (Iowa, 1893,
54 N. W. Rep. 433), 214.
Raymond v. Raymond (10 Cush.,
Mass., 134), 214.
Raynes v. Bennett (114 Mass. 435),
68.
Raynham v. Canton (3 Pick. 333),
143.
Raynor v. Norton (3 Mich. 210), 337.
Rea V. Scully (76 Iowa, 343), 148.
Read v. Hurd (7 Wend., N. Y., 408),
225.
Read v. Woodruffe (24 Beav. 431),
305.
Reavis v. Cowell (56 Cal. 588), 356.
Reber v. Herring (115 Pa. St. 599; 8
Atl. Rep. 800), 193.
Record v. Village (46 Hun, 448), 178.
Redell v. Railroad Co. (44 N. Y. 367),
188.
Redd V. Murray (34 Pac. Rep. 341 ; 93
Cal. 48), 310.
Redden v. Teft (48 Kan. 303 ; 39 Pac.
Rep. 157), 350.
Reddick v. State (31 Tex. App. 267),
323.
Redding v. Wright (49 Minn. 332),
67, 199.
Red f earn v. Douglas (85 S. C. 569),
383.
Redfield v. Redfield (110 N. Y. 674),
309.
Redford v. Peggy (6 Rand., Va., 316),
139a.
Redman v. Graham (80 N. C. 331),
83.
Redstrake v. Insurance Co. (44 N. J.
Eq. 394), 34.
Reed v. Dick (8 Watts, Pa., 479), 198.
Reed v. Kemp (Ifi 111. 4i5), 138.
Reed v. New (39 Kan. 737), 369.
Reed v. Newcomb (19 Atl. Rep. 367),
83,
Reed v. Penn. Ry. Co. (56 Fed. Rep.
184), 193.
Reed v. Stapp (53 Fed. Rep. 641 ; 3
C. C. A. 344; 9 U. S. App. 34),
369.
Reed v. State (16 Ark. 499), 114.
Reed v. State (16 S. W. Rep. 819; 54
Ark. 621), 329.
Reed v. Wilson (61 Hun, 633), 159.
Reed v. Wilson (41 N. J. L. 29), 145,
243.
cxlvi
TABLE OF CASES.
Heferenoes are to sections.
Reed v. Walters (3 M. & "W. 577),
106.
Eeese v. Coffey (Ind., 1893, 33 N. E.'
Rep. 730), 363.
Reese v. Harris (37 Ala. 301), 230.
Reese v. Murnane (31 Pac. Rep. 1037 ;
5 Wash. St. 373), 117.
Eeese v. Reese (90 Pa. St. 89), 139a.
Reeves v. Townsend (3 Zab., N. J.,
39), 283.
Reg. V. Adderburg (5 Q. B. 187), 73.
Reg. V. Arnold (8 C. & P. 623), 90.
Reg. V. Atwood (5 Cox, C. C. 333),
90.
Reg. V. Baldy (16 Jur. 599), 89.
Reg. V. Bate (11 Cox.C. C. 686), 90.
Reg. V. Bedingfield (14 Cox, C. C.
341), 57.
Reg. V. Bird (17 Cox, C. C. 387), 24.
Reg. V. Boulter (16 Jur. 135), 383.
Reg. V. Braithwaite (8 Cox, C. C.
354), 383.
Reg. V. Burke (8 Cox, 44), 354.
Reg. V. Butler (3 Car. & Kir. 331),
93.
Reg. V. Chappie (9 C. & P. 355), 281.
Reg. V. Child (5 Cox, C. C. 197), 124.
Reg. V. Farler (8 C. & P. 106), 334.
Reg. V. Garbott (1 Denio, C. C. 236),
/ 354.
Reg. V. Garner (12 Jur. 944), 89.
Reg. V. Garside (2 Lew. Q. C. 38),
323.
Reg. V. Hill (15 Jur. 470), 317.
Reg. V. Holmes (1 C. & K. 248), 90.
Reg. V. Jarvis (L. R., 1 C. C. R., C.
B. 96), 89.
Reg. V. Jones (1 Den. Cr. Cas. 166),
173.
Reg. V. Kitson (20 Eng. L. & Bq.
509), 126.
Reg. V. Lay ton (4 Cox, C. C. 149, 155),
231.
Reg. V. Martin (L. E. 1 Cr. Cas. Res.
878), 344.
Reg. V. Moore (61 Law J. Mag. 80;
17 Cox, C. C. 458), 315.
Reg. V. Perkins (9 C. & P. 395), 102.
Reg. V. Richardson (3 F. & F. 693),
175.
Reg. V. Shaw (10 Cox, C. C. 66), 383.
Reg. V. Sloman (1 Dowl. 618), 284.
Reg. V. Sparks (1 F. & F. 388), 323.
Reg. V. Steele (13 Cox, 0. C. 168), 101.
Reg. V. Still (30 U. C. C. P. 30), 196.
Eeg. V. Young (19 Cox, C. C. 371),
824. -
Reherd v. Clem (86 Va. 374), 309.
Reich V. Berdel (130 111. 499; 11 N.
E. Rep. 913), 30.
Eeid V. Hodgson (1 Cranch, XJ. S,,
491), 139.
Reid V. Louisiana, etc. Co. (29 La.
Ann. 388), 69.
Reid v. N. Yj Cent. R. R. Co. (145 N.
Y. 574), 52.
Reid V. State (50 Ga. 536), 249.
Reifsnyder v. Meter Co. (Iowa, 1894,
57 N. W. Eep. 693), 198.
Reigard v. O'Neill (38 111. 400), 223.
Reiley v. Haynes (38 Kan. 359), 367.
Reily v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 33 S. W.
Eep. 223), 9, 10.
Eeineman v. Blair (96 Pa. St. 155),
74.
Eeinhart v. Lugo (86 Cal. 395), 150a.
Eeinhold v. State (130 Ind. 467), 334.
Reis V. Graf man (56 Mo. 434),. 83.
Eeiter v. Miller (86 N. Y. 507), 331.
Remer v. Long Island R. Co. (1 N.
Y. S. 124; 48 Hun, 352), 340.
Remington v. Dougherty (81 N. Y.
474), 135.
Remy v. Mun. No. 2 (12 La. Ann.
500, 503), 344.
Eenaud v. Abbott (116 U. S. 277),
242.
Eenier v. Hurlburt (50 N. W. Rep.
783; 81 Wis. 24), 159.
Eenihan v. Dennin (103 N. Y. 577),
178.
Renolds v. Rowley (3 La, Ann. 890),
73a.
Rent T. Church (136 N. Y. 10; 33 N.
E. Eep. 704), 151.
Renz V. Stoll (94 Mich. 877), 346.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxlvii
Beferences are to sections.
Repp V. Wiles (3 Ind. App. 167; 29
N. E. Rep. 441), 74.
Reppert v. Colvin (48 Pa. St. 348), 09.
Republic Bank v. Darragh (30 Hun,
N. Y., 29), 314.
Respublioa v. Oribbs (3 Yeates, 429),
354.
Respublioa v. Davis (3 Yeates, 128),
73.
Respublioa v. McCarthy (3 Dall. 86,
88), 93.
Reuber v. Crawford (Neb., 1893, 54
N. W. Rep. 549), 380.
Revett V. Braham (4 T. R. 497), 140.
Rex V. Aickles (1 Leach, ,Cr. Cas. 435),
144.
Rex V. Baker (3 M. & Rob. 58), 103.
Rex V. Baldry (3 Den. C. C. 4.30), 90.
Rex V. Benson (Camp. 508), 147.
Rex V. Brangan (l' Leach, Or. Cas.
33), 140.
Rex V. Castell Careinion (8 East), 320.
Rex V. Clewes (4 C. & P. 231), 90.
Rex V. Cotton (3 Campb. 444, 446),
113.
Rex V, Court (7 C. & P. 486), 91.
Rex V. Criswell (3 T. R. 721), 123.
Rex V. Davis (6 Mod. 74), 330.
Rex V. Deeley (1 Moody, Cr. Cas.
303), 33.
Rex V. Derrington (2 C. & P. 418),
91.
Rex V. Dunn (4 C. & P. 543), 96.
Rex V. Fletcher (1 Stra. 633), 323.
Rex V. Fuller (Russ. & Ry. SOS), 239.
Rex V. Gillis (11 Cox, C. C. 69), 323.
Rex V. Green (6 C. & E. 655), 91.
Rex V. Hard wick (11 East, 579), 72,
96.
Rex V. Hardy (34 How. St. Tr. 451,
753), 69, 175.
Rex V. Harrington (4 M. & S. 353),
138.
Rex V. Harvey (8 Cox, C. C. 103), 313.
Eex V. Hayes (3 Cox, C. C. 226), 53.
Rex V. Hebdon (2 Stra. 1109), 151.
Rex V. Hind (8 Cox, C. C. 300), 103.
Rex V. Hunt (3'B. & A. 566), 36.
Rex V. Inhabitants (3 B. & Aid. 588),
38.
Rex V. Inhabitants (1 B. & C. 573),
107.
Rex V. Jarvis (2 M, & R. 40), 334.
Rex V. Jenkins (L. R. 1 Cr. Cas.
187), 101.
Rex V. Leefe (3 Campb. 134, 140), 30.
Rex V. Lewis (4 Esp. 325), 354.
Rex V. Lewis (6 G. & P. 161), 93.
Rex V. Lloyd (0 C. & P. 393), 91.
Rex V. London (2 Lev. 231), 288.
Rex V. Mayhew (6 C. & P. 315), 383.
Rex V. Mayor (5 T. R. 66), 151.
Rex V. Mead (2 B. & C. 605), 103.
Rex V. Mellor (Staff. Sum. Assize,
1833), 333.
Rex V. More (3 Den. C. C. 533), 96.
Rex V. Morris (3 Burr. 1189), 147.
Rex V. Mosely (1 Mood. 97), 101.
Rex V. Noakes (5 C. & P. 326), 334.
Rex V. Onslow (13 Cox, 356), 281.
Rex V. Reason (1 Str. 499, 500), 103.
Rex V. Sadler (4 C. & P. 218), 277.
Rex V. Scaife (1 Mood. & R. 551).
103.
Rex V. Simmons (6 C. & P. 540), 91.
Rex V. Slaney (5 C. & P. 313; 24 E.
C. L. 1832), 139.
Rex V. Slaughter (8 C. & P. 734), 96.
Rex V. Spencer (7 C. & P. 776), 96.
Rex V. Spilsbury (7 C. & P. 188), 93.
Rex V. Walter (7 C. & P. 267), 93.
Rex V. Walters (7 C. & P. 3.50), 23.
Rex V. Watson (2 Stark. 136), 175.
Rex V. Wedge (5 C. & P. 298), 53.
Rex V. Waller (3 Car. & K. 333), 93.
Rex V. Wild (1 Mood. Cr. Cas. 453),
91.
Rex V. M''obum (10 East, 395), 288.
Rex V. Woodcock (3 Leach, Cr. Cas.
567), 100, 166.
Rexford v. Comstock (3 N. Y. S. 876),
60.
Rexford V. Miller (49 Vt. 819), 231.
Reynders.v. Hindman (88 Ga. 314),
74.
Reynolds v. Adams (90 111. 134), 232.
cxlviii
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferenoes are to sections.
Reynolds v, Franklin (47 Minn. 145),
363.
Reynolds v. Greenbaum (80 111. 416),
3ol.
Reynolds v. Jordan (6 Cal. 109), 317.
Reynolds v. Reynolds (45 Mo. App.
623), 363.
Reynolds v. Robinson (64 N. Y. 389),
188, 199.
Reynolds v. Robinson (83 N. Y. 103),
315.
Reynolds v. Rowley (3 Rob., La,, 261),
178.
Reynolds v. United States (98 U. S.
155), 120, 131.
Reynolds, Ex parte (87 Ala. 138),
240.
Rhine .'. Ellen (36 Cal. 363), 308.
Rhines v. Baird (41 Pa. St. 356),
233.
Rhode V. Louthain (8 BlacUf., Ind.,
413), 368.
Rhodes v. Lowry (54 Ala. 4), 73a.
Rhodes v. Metropolis (36 111. App.
123), 153.
Rhodes v. Pray (36 Minn. 395), 309.
Rice V. Daly (66 Hun, 628), 303.
Rice V. Hassenpflug (13 N. E. Rep.
655; 45 Ohio St. 477), 315.
Rice V. Keith (63 N. C. 319), 166.
Rice V. Mead (23 How. Pr. 440), 237.
Rice V. Montgomery (4 Hiss. 75). 239.
Rice V. Pennypacker (5 Del. Ch. 33),
346.
Rice V.Rice (47 N. J. Eq. 559; 19
Atl. Rep. 736), 203, 288, 335.
Rice V. Shook (37 Ark. 137), 338.
Rich V. Flanders (39 N. H. 304), 67,
68.
Rich V. Jones (9 Cush., Mass., 836),
186.
Rich V. Minneapolis (40 Minn. 84), 76.
Richard v. Williams (7 Wheat. 59),
236.
Richards' Appeal (132 Pa. St. 547; 15
Atl. Rep. 903), 36.
Richards v. Bassett (10 B. & C. 657),
113, 114.
Richards v.Bestor (90 Ala. 353), 24.
Richards v. Crocker (66 Hun, 629),
205.
Richards v. Day (63 Hun, 635), 313.
Richards v. Green (Ariz., 1893, 33
Pac. Rep. 366), 34.
Richards v. Howard (3 Nott & McC.
474), 60.
Richards v. Humphreys (15 Pick.
139), 315.
Richards v. Knight (Iowa, 1893, 42
N. W. Rep. 584), 237.
Richards v. State (36 Neb. 17; 58 N.
W. Rep. 1037), 53.
Richards v. State (82 Wis. 172; 51 N.
W. Rep. 652), 103, 348.
Richards v. Wedemeyer (75 Md. 10),
11.
Richardson v. Beede (43 Me. 161),
311.
Richardson v. Eureka (96 Cal. 443),
332.
Richardson v. Hooper (13 Pick. 446),
214.
Richardson v. Hnggins (33 N. H. 106),
332.
Richardson v. Milburn (17 Md. 67),
30.
Richardson v. Palmer (38 N. H. 218),
220.
Richardson v. Stringfellow (Ala.,
1894, 14 S. Rep. 383), 186.
Richardson v. Williams (3 Port.,
Ala., 339), 239.
Richardson, etc. Co. v. Jones (92 Ala.
218; 9S. Rep. 276), 138.
Richmond v. Sundborg (77 Iowa,
258), 854.
Richmond v. Thomaston (38 Me. 232),
56.
Richmond, etc. Oo. v. Burnett (88
Va. 538), 380.
Richmond, etc. Co. v. Farmer (Ala.,
13 S. Rep. 86), 18.
Richmond, etc. Co. v. Farquar (8
Blaokf., Ind., 89), 221.
Richmond, etc. Co. v. Garner (Ga.,
1893, 16 S. E. Rep. 110), 7.
TABLE OF OASES.
cxlix
Heferencea are to sections.
Richmond, etc. Co. v. Hammond
(93 Ala. 181 ; 9 S. Rep. 577), 56.
Richmond, etc. Co. v. His3ong(Ala.,
1893, 13 S. Rep. 209), 145. ,
Richmond, etc. Co. v. Keiler (88 Ga.
39), 81.
Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Vance (93
Ala. 144), 343.
Richmond R. & E. Co. v. Dick (8
U. S. App. 99 ; 52 Fed. Rep. 379),
283.
Rick V. Neitzy (1 Mackey, D. C, 21),
304.
Ricketts V. Gurney (7 Price, 699),
287.
Riddis v. James (6 Binn. 331), 143.
Riddle V. Hill (51 Ala. 234), 238.
Rideout V. Newton (17 N. H. 71),
139a.
Riderliour v. Kansas City Cable Ry.
Co. (103 Mo. 270), 20, 319.
Ridgely v. Howard (3 Har. & iVIcH.,
Md., 321), 136.
Ridgely v. Johnson (11 Barb., N. Y.,
527), 108.
Ridgway v. Bowman (7 Cush. 268),
313.
Rifener v. Bowman (53 Pa. St. 318),
128.
Rigdon V. Conley (31 111. App. 630),
126, 339.
Rigdon V. Jordan (81 Ga. 668), 253.
Riggs V. Myers (30 Mo. 239), 220.
Riggs V. Powell (143 111. 458; 33 N.
E. Rep. 482), 139, 140.
Riggs V. State (30 Miss. 635), 9, 52.
Riggs v. Tayloe (9 Wheat. 486), 130.
Right V. Price (Dong. 241), 276.
Riley v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 33 S. W.
Rep. 233), 10.
Riley v. Gerrish (9 Cush. 104), 319.
Riley v. Gregg (16 Wis. 666), 319.
Riley v. Martinelli (97 Cal. 575; 32
Pac. Rep. 579), 79.
Riley v. Minor (29 Mo. 439), 268.
Riley v. State (88 Ala. 93), 330, 342.
Riley v. Suydam (4 BarR, N. Y.,
333), 71.
Ring V. Ashworth (3 Iowa, 452), 223.
Ringgenburg v. Hartman (102 Ind.
537), 283.
Ringgold V. Tyson (3 Har. & J. 172),
810.
Ringold V. Edwards (7 Ark. 86),
150a.
Riordan v. Guggerty (74 Iowa, 688 ;
39 N. W. Rep. 107), 141, 337, 340.
Ripley v. Paige (12 Vt. 353), 205.
Ripon V. Bittel (30 Wis. 614), 189.
Risk V. State (19 lud. 153), 345.
Ritchie v. Pease (114 111. 353), 205.
Ritter v. First Nat. Bank (30 Mo,
App. 653), 8.
Rivard v. Walker (39 111. 413), 239.
Rivers v. State (10 Tex. App. 177),
320.
Rizzolo V. Com. (126 Pa. St. 54), 90.
Roach V. Bannon (57 Miss. 490), 83.
Robb V. Hackley (23 Wend. 50), 350.
Robb v. Schmidt (35 Mo. 290), 70.
Robbing v. City of Fond du Lac (82
Wis. 840), 380.
Robbins v. Diggins (78 Iowa, 521 ; 43
N. W. Rep. 306), 18, 24.
Robbins v. Spencer (121 Ind. 594),
340.
Robbins v. State (8 Ohio St. 131), 103.
Robbins v. State (Tex., 1893, 20 S. W.
Rep. 858), 283.
Robb's Case (11 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 443),
332.
Roberts' Appeal (26 Pa. St. 103), 67.
Roberts' Case (1 Dev. 259, 264), 90, 96.
Roberts v, Boston (149 Mass. 346),
199.
Roberts v. Burgess (85 Ala. 192), 368.
Roberts v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 22 S. W.
Rep. 895), 330, 354.
Roberts v. Conell (71 Tex. 11), 86,
150.
Roberts v. Davis (72 Ga. 819), 83.
Roberts v. Dixon (50 Kan. 436), 126.
Roberts v. Donovan (70 Cal. 118),
309.
Roberts v. Kendall (3 Ind. App. 339),
67.
cl
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to seotiona.
Roberts v. Jolinson (58 N. Y. 613),
193.
Roberts v. Johnstown Bank (14 N.
Y. S. 432; 60 Hun, 576), 376.
Roberts v. McGse (15 Barb. 449), 80.
Roberts v. Medbury (132 Mass. 100),
69, 70, 115.
Roberts v. People (9 Colo.. 474), 325.
Roberts v. Preston (100 N. C. 243),
115.
Roberts v. Railroad Co. (1 Brew.,
Pa., 538), 356.
Roberts v. Roberts (Cal., 1893, 31
Pac. Rep. 941), 150a.
Roberts v. Roberts (55 N. Y. 275), 220.
Roberts v. Spencer (133 Mass. 397),
136.
Roberts v. State (5 Tex. App. 141),
103.
Roberts v. Trawick (13 Ala. 68), 67.
Roberts v. Wills (8 Paige, 446), 143.
Robertson v. Barbourne (6 B. Mon.
537), 150.
Robertson v. Brost (83 111. 116), 71.
Robertson v. Coates(lTex. Civ. App.
664>, 363.
Robertson v. Graver (Iowa, 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 493), 333.
Robertson v. Jones (8 Mass. 536), 158.
Robertson v. Knapp (35 N. Y. 91 ; 33
How. Pr., N. Y., 309), 188.
Robertson v. Reed (38 Mo. App. 32),
60.
Robertson v. Robertson (Ky., 1893,
30 S. W. Rep. 543), 249.
Robertson v. State (17 S. W. Rep.
1068 ; 30 Tex. App. 496), 88.
Robertson v. Van Cleave (129 Ind.
217; 26 N. E. Rep. 899), 151.
Robin V. King (3 Leigh, 142), 168.
Robinson v. Adams (63 Me. 369), 197,
231.
Robinson V. Arnet (15 La. 263), 133.
Robinson v. Brewster (140 111. 649),
223.
Robinson v. Brown (83 111. 279), 244.
Robinson^ v. Chambers (94 Mich.
471), 280.
Robinson v. Evans (3 S. C. 335), 311.
Robinson v. Gallier (3 Wood, C. C.
178), 333.
Robinson v. Gould (26 Iowa, 93), 339.
Robinson v. Kanawha, etc. Co. (8 N.
E. Rep. 688), 74.
Robinson v. Marino (3 Wash. 434),
193.
Robinson v. Mulder (81 Mich. 75), GO,
209.
Robinson v. Parks (76 Md. 118), 145.
Robinson v. Reed (46 Iowa, 220), 127.
Robinson v. Robinson (23 Iowa, 247),
70.
Robinson v. Robinson (20 S. C. 567),
139a.
Robinson v. State (83 Ga. 535), 334.
Robinson v. State (1 Lea, Tenn., 673),
363.
Robinson v. S,tate (124 111. 336), 350.
Robinson f. State (84 Ga. 674), 226.
Robinson v. Trull (4 Cush. 249), 277.
Robinson v. Wheeler (35 N. Y. 352),
329.
Robinson Con. Coal Co. v. Johnson
(33 Pac. Rep. 459; 13 Colo. 258),
69.
Robinson Consolidated Mining Co. v.
Craig (4 N. Y. St. Rep. 478), 139.
Robsen v. State (83 Ga. 166; 9 S. E.
Rep. 610), 284.
Robson V. Kemp (4 Esp. 235), 170.
Roch V. George's Adm'r (Ky., 1893,
20 S. W. Rep. 1039), 365.
Roche V. Beldam (119 111. 320), 205.
Roche V. Ware (71 Cal. 375), 60.
Rochelle v. Harrison (8 Port.) Ala.,
851), 71.
Rochester, etc, Co. v. Budlong (10
How. Pr., N. Y., 389), 187.
Rockey's Estate, In re (155 Pa. St.
453; 26 Atl. Rep. 656; 33 W. N.
C. 434), 140.
Rockford v. Hollenbeck (34 111. App.
40), 30.
Rockland v. Morrill (71 Me. 455), 283.
Rockweltv. Brown (34 N. Y. 213),
208.
TABLE OF CASES.
cli
Beferences are to sections.
Roddy V. Finnegan (43 Md. 490),
354a.
Rodee v. Detroit F. & M. Ins. Co. (36
N. y. S. 242), 199.
Rodemacher v. Green, Ins. Co. (27
N. Y. S. 155), 199.
Roderigues v. Bank (63 N. ,Y. 460),
233.
Rndes v. Elevator Co. (49 Minn. 370),
73a.
Rodman v. Hoops (1 Dall. 85), 160,
Rodriquez v. State (22 S. W. Rep.
998 ; 33 Tex. Cr. Rep. 259), 14S.
Roe V. Cutter (4 Wash. St. 611), 18.
Roe V. Davis (7 East, 362), 80.
Roe V. Day (7 C. & P. 705), 80.
Roe V. Ferrais (3 B. & P. 548), 80.
Roe V. Roe (40 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1), 140.
Roe V. Strong (107 N. Y. 356), 145.
Rosblie V. Andrews (26 Wis. 311), 69.
Roehl V. Hanmesser (114 Ind. 311),
130.
Rogers v. Adams (66 Ala. 600), 136.
Rogers v. Bullocli (3 Pen., 3N. J. L.,
517), 386.
Rogers v. Burns (37 Pa. St. 625),-232.
Rogers v. Clements (92 N. C. 81), 69.
Rogers v. Coal Co. (Ala., 1893, 12 S.
Rep. 81), 53.
Rogers v. Crain (30 Tex. 284), 53.
Rogers v. French (19 Ga. 316), 215.
Rogers v. Kneeland (10 Wend. 219),
371.
Rogers v. Ritter (13 Wall., U. S.,
317), 139.
Rogers v. Rogers (87 Mo. 357), 346.
Rogers v. State (50 Ala. 103), 23.
Rogers v. State (11 Tex. App. 608),
139.
Rogers v. State (90 Ga..463; 16 S. E.
Rep. 205), 33.
Rogers v. Tillman (73 Ga. 479), 143.
Rogers v. Tyley (144 111. 643; 32 N.
E. Rep. 693), 139, 140, 141.
Rohrer v. Morningstar (18 Ohio, 579),
310.
Rohrig V. Pearson (13 Cola 127), 337.
Rollins V. Clement (23 S. C. 601), 8.
Rollins V. Jlenager (23 W. Va, 461),
136.
Rollins V. United States (33 Ct. CI.
106), 57.
Romanes v. Frazier (16 Grant, U. C,
97), 135.
Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Ship-
' man (69 Cal. 586), 151.
Romans v. Hay (13 Iowa, 370), 168.
Romer v. Center (Minn., 1893, 54 N.
W. Rep. 1053), 374.
Ronkendorf v. Taylor (4 Peters, 349),
143.
Ronnebaum v. Mt. Auburn Ry. Co.
(29 Wkly. Law Bui. 338), 67.
Rooker v. Perkins (14 Wis. 557), 326.
Roosa V. Boston Loan Co. (138 Mass.
439), 53.
Roosevelt v. Marks (16 Johns. Ch.
266), 69.
Roosevelt v. Railroad Co. (66 Hun,
633), 38a.
Root V. Borst (65 Hun, 633), 350.
Root V. King (7 Cow., N. Y., 617),
144.
Rose V. Bank (91 Mo. 399), 139a, 140.
Rose V. Chapman (44 Mich. 312), 73.
Rosev. Otis (31 Pac. Rep. 493; 18
Colo. 59), 350.
Roseboom v. Billington (17 Johns.
182), 61.
Rosebrough v. Ansley (35 Ohio St.
107), 84.
Rosenberg v. Claflin (Ala., 1893, 10
S. Rep. 521), 357.
Rosenfeld v. Case (87 Mich. 295),
131.
RosenSeld v. Fortier (94 Mich. 34),
83.
Rosenthal v. Bilger (Iowa, 1893, 53
N. W. Rep. 255), 335.
Rosenthal v. McMann (39 Pac. Rep.
131 ; 93 Cal. 505), 363.
Rosenthal v. Walker (111 U. S. 185),
230.
Roseville v. Gilbert (24 111. App. 334),
331.
Ross V. Bedell (5 Duer, 462), 231.
clii
TARLE OF OASES.
References are to sections.
Ross V. Boswell (60 Ind. 335), 237.
Ross V. Bruce (1 Day, Conn., 100),
35.
Ross V. Brusie (70 Cal. 465), 60.
Ross V. Buhler (2 Mart., N. S., La.,
313), 313.
Ross V. Faust (54 Ind. 471), 239.
Ross V. Goodwin (88 Ala. 390), 130.
Ross V. Malone (Ala., 1893, 12 S, Rep.
183), 20.
Ross V. McQuiston (45 Iowa, 145),
233.
Ross V. Sagbeer (31 Wend. 106), 208.
Ross V. State (67 Md. 286), 89.
Rosson V. Stehr (38 Tex. App. 287),
330.
Roswell V. State (63 Ala. 307), 331.
Roten V. State (31 Fla. 514; 13 S.
Rep. 910), 10, 102.
Roth V. State (10 Tex. App. 7), 23.
Rothrock v. Gallaher (91 Pa. St. 108),
131, 309.
Rottenburgh V. Fowl (N. J., 1893, 26
Atl. Rep. 338), 208.
Rottraan v. Wasson (5 Kan. 552),
368.
Rougbton V. Rawlings (88 Ga. 819),
263.
Rounds V. Rounds (64 Vt. 433), 53.
Rounds V. State (57 Wis. 45), 134.
Rountree t. Lane (33 S. C. 160), 263.
Rountree v. State (88 Ga. 457), 326,
334.
Rousey v. Wood (47 Mo. App. 465),
339.
Rousseau v. Blen (31 N. Y. 177), 169.
Rowe V. Brenton (8 B. & C. 737 1 3
Man. & R. 367), 117, 362.
Rowe V. Canney (139 Mass. 41), 176.
Rowe V. Hasland (1 W. B. L. 404),
333.
Rowe V. Ware (30 Ga. 278), 268.
Rowell V. Fuller (59 Vt. 688), 38,
140.
Rowell V. Klein (44 Ind. 290), 73a.
Rowland v. Ashby (Ry. & M. 231),
93.
Rowland v. Boozer (10 Ala. 690), 69,
Rowland v. McCowan (30 Greg. 538 ;
36 Pac. Rep. 853), 58.
Rowland v. Rowland (40 N. J. Eq,
381), 310. .
Rowley v. Ball (3 Cowen, 303), 180.
Rowley v. Howard (23 Cal. 401),
150a.
Rowley v. Merlin (6 Jur., N. S.,
1165), 129.
Royal Ins. Co. v. Sohuring (87 Ky.
410 ; 9 S. W. Rep. 243), 254.
Royce v. Burt (43 Barb., N. Y., 339),
205.
Royce v. Cazan (76 Ga. 79), 139.
Rozet V. Harvey (26 111. App. 558),
24.
Ruan V. Perry (3 Gaines, N. Y., 120),
10.
Ruberts v. Cora. (Ky., 7 S. W. Rep.
401), 89.
Ruby V. Van Valkenburg (72 Tex.
450), 167.
Ruch V. Rock Island (97 U. S. 693),
120.
Rucker v. Reid (86 Kan. 470), 363.
Rudd V. Robinson (7 N. Y. S. 535;
54 Hun, 339), 00.
Rudd V. Rounds (64 Vt. 432), 56.
Rudolph V. Davis (35 Neb. 157; 52
N. W. Rep. 841), 380.
Rudy V. Austin (56 Ark. 73), 304.
Rugg V. Ward (23 Atl. Rep. 726; 64
Vt. 403), 220.
Rule V. Maupin (84 Mo. 587), 233.
Rulken v. Reid (36 Kan. 470), 363.
Ruloff V. People (45 N. Y. 234), 38a,
346.
Ruloff V. People (18 N. Y. 179), 93.
Rumph V. State (Ga., 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 104), 139, 139a.
Rumsey v. Boutwell (61 Hun, 165),
11.
Rumsey v. N. Y. & N. J. Tel. Co.
(49 N. J. L. 333), 60.
Rundle v. Foster (3 Tenn. Ch. 658),
170.
Runger v. Holtzolaw (112 Mo. 519),
309.
TABLE OF CASES.
cliii
References are to sections.
Runls V. Ten Eyck (34 N. J. L. 750),
73f/.
Runnels V, State (38 Ark. 121), 333.
Eupei-t V. Penner (35 Neb. 587 ; id.
803; 53 N. W. Rep. 892), 210,
367.
Rusling V. Rusling(36 N. J. Eq. 726),
51.
Rush V. French (1 Ariz. 99), 130.
Russ V. Wabash W. Ry. Co. (112 My.
45), 188.
Russell V. Bradley (47 Kan. 438), 20.
Russell V. Coffin (8 Pick., Mass.,
143), 139.
Russell V. Com. (78 Va. 600), 5.
Russell V. Crittenden (53 Conn. 564),
188.
Russell V. De Grand (8 R. I. 389),
308.
Russell V. Hallett (23 Kan. 376), 233.
Russell V. Irwin (41 Ala. 393), 219.
Russell V.' Jackson (15 Jur. 1117),
173, 174.
Russell V. Jackson (22 Wend. 376),
238.
Russell V. Kearney (27 Ga. 96), 148.
Russell V. Longmore (39 Neb. 209,
38S), 128, 139,
Russell V. Martin (15 Tex. 238), 357.
Russell V. Nail (79 Tex. 644; 15 S. W.
Rep, 635), 378.
Russell V. Place (94 U. S. 608), 154.
Russell V. Eider (6 C. & P. 416), 337.
Russell V. Russell (64 Ala. 500), 205.
Russell V. Sargent (7 111. App. 98),
240.
Russell V. Seminary (75 111. 337). 136.
Russell V. Stanbyn (16 Moak's Eng.
818), 215.
Russell V. State (11 Tex. App. 268),
10.
Russell V. Stockton (8 Conn. 336),
114.
RusSell V. Switzer (63 Ga. 711), 346.
Ruston's Case (I Leach's Cr. Cas.
408), 316.
Rutherford V. Morris (77 111. 397),
197.
Rutherford v. Sohattman (119 N. Y.
604), 69.
Rutledge v. Hudson (80 Ga. 268), 38.
Ryan v. People (79 N. Y. 594), 354.
Ryan v. State (84 Wis. 368), 9.
Ryan v. State (83 Wis. 486), 88, 97,
239, 334.
Ryder v. Roberts (48 Mo. App. 132),
233.
Ryno V. Darby (20 N. J. Eq. 31), 833.
s.
Sabariego v. Maverick (124 U. S. .
295), 226.
Sabler v. Sheffield S. Co. (87 Ala.
305), 310.
Sabre v. Smith (63 N. H. 663), 309.
Sackett v. Spencer (29 Barb. 180),
337.
Sackville v. Ayleartt (1 Vern. 105),
363.
Saders v. Giddings (90 Mich. 50). 31.
Saenger v. Nightingale (48 Fed. Rep.
708), 79,
Sage V. Jones (47 Ind. 132), 205,
Sage V. State (27 Ind. 15 ; 36 N. E.
Rep. 667), 134.
Sage V. State (91 Ind. 141), 197,
Sager v. Dorr (4 N, Y, S, 568), 309.
Sahlion v. Bank (90 Tenn. 221), 316.
Sahlinger v. People (103 III. 341), 339.
St. George v. St. Margaret (1 Salk.
123), 234,
St. Louis V, Arndt (94 Mo. 275; 7 S.
W. Rep. 15), 50,
St. Louis V. Miss, P. R, Co. (Mo,,
1893, 81 S, W, Rep. 303), 310.
St. Louis V. San Francisco R, E, Co.
(35 Kan. 426), 242.'
St. Louis Bridge Co. v. Miller (138
111, 465), 202,
St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Am. T. I. Co.
(33 Mo. App. 348), 241.
St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Bradley (54
Fed. Rep. 630), 198.
St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Insurance Co.
(33 Mo. App. 348), 237.
cliv
TABLE OF OASES.
References are to sections.
St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Olive (40 111.
App. 83), 283.
St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Weaver (35
Kan. 412), 330, 242.
St. Louis Gas Co. v. American F. I.
Co. (33 Mo. App. 348), 190.
St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Lyman
(57 Arli:. 513; 33 S. W. Rep. 170),
187.
St. Louis, L M. & S. R. Co. v. Spann
(57 Ark. 127 ; 20 S. W. Rep. 914),
380.
St. Louis, I. M. & S. E. Co. v. Sweet
(57 Ark. 387; 31 S. W. Rep. 587),
350.
St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor
(Ark., 1893, 20 S. W. Rep. 1083),
249.
Sairs v. Sexton (35 111. App. 307),
154.
Salado College v. Davis (47 Tex.
131), 73a.
Salas V. State (31 Tex. Crim. R. 485),
93.
Salazar v. Taylor (18 Col. 538; 33
Pac. Rep. 839), 139.
Salem Bank v. Gloucester (17 Mass.
37), 81.
Sallua V. Tuspar (27 Kan. 544), 343.
Salladay v. Dodgeville (Wis., 1893,
55 N. W. Rep. 696), 8.
Salmon v. Miles (4 U. S. App. 101),
357.
Salmon Bank v. Leyser (116 Md. 51 ;
22 S. W. Rep. 504), 24.
Salomon, etc. Co. v. Jones (34 Kan.
443), 74.
Salte V. Thomas (3 B. & P. 188), 144.
Sammons v. Hawver (35 W.' Va.
678), 253.
Sample v. Frost (10 Iowa, 266), 169.
Samson v. Overton (4 Bibb, 409), 148.
Sanders v. Bagwell (S. C, 1893, 16
S. E. Rep. 770), 128, 339.
Sanders v. Palmer(55Fed. Rep. 217),
12.
Sanders v. Reister (1 Dak. Ter. 151),
53.
Sanders v. State (94 Ind. 147), 190.
Sanders v. Stokes (IJO Ala. 43), 7.
Sandford v. Chase (3 Cow., N. Y.,
381), 286.
Sandford v. Newark (37 N. J. L, 1),
323.
Sandford v. Oberlin College (31 Pac.
Rep. 1088; 50 Kan. 343), 152.
Sandford Tool Co. v. Mullen (In J.,
1890, 27 N. E. Rep. 448), 24.
Sandidge v. Hunt (5 S. Rep. 55; 40
La. Ann. 766), 230.
Saridifer v. Howard (59 111. 246), 70.
Sands v. Robison (12 Smed. & M.,
Miss., 854), 176.
Sanford v. Chase (3 Cow., N. Y., 381),
275.
Sanford v. Ellithorpe (95 N. Y. 4S),
309.
Sanford v. Gates (38 Kan. 405), 282.
Sanford v. Peck (Conn., 1894, 27
Atl. Rep. 1057), 8.
Sanford v. Rawlings (43 111. 92), 317.
Sanford v. Rowley (93 Mich. 119), 10.
San Gabriel Wine Co. v. Behlow (94
Cal. 108), 380.
Sanger v. Flow (48 Fed. Rep. 153 ; 4
U. S. App. 32), 249.
Sanger v. Merritt (131 N. Y. 614), 262.
Saugster v. Dalton (Ark., 1890, 12
S. W. Rep. 202), 50.
San Joaquin v. Beecher (Cal., 1894,
35 Pac. Rep. 349), 205.
Sanscraint v. Torongo (87 Mich. 69),
79, 110.
Santa Clara v. Enright (95 Cal. 10.5),
188.
Santissima Trinidad, In re (7 Whe.it.
373, 335), 243.
Sapp V. King (66 Tex. 570), 279.
Sfirgeant v. Marshall (38 111. App.
643), 124.
Sargeant v. Sargeant (18 Vt. 371), 73.
Sargent v. Hampden (38 Me. 581),
169.
Sarle v. Arnold (7 R. I. 582), 188.
Sartor v. Bullinger (59 Tex. 411),
139a.
TABLE OF CASES.
clv
Eeferenoea are to sections.
Sartorius v. State (24 Miss. 603), 330.
Saser v. Bank (4 Md. 430), 145.
Sasser v. Herring (3 Dev., N. C, 340),
llfi.
Sasser v. Sasser (73 Ga. 375), 346.
Satchell v. Doram (4 Ohio St. 543),
231.
Satterwhite v. Davenport (10 Eich.,
S. C, Eq. 305), 306.
Satterwhite v. Rosser (61 Tex. 166),
325.
Satterwhite v. Shirley (35 N. E. Rep.
1100), 151.
Sauber v. Collins (40 III. App. 436),
11.
Sauer v. Union Oil Co. (9 S. Rep.
566 ; 43 La. Ann. 699), 229.
Sauls V. State (30 Tex. App. 496; 17
S. W. Rep. 1066), 88.
Saunders v. Bridges (67 Tex. 93),
352.
Saunders v. Hendrix (5 Ala. 224),
168.
Saunders v. People (88 Mich. 222),
137.
Saussy v. So. Flor. R. Co. (33 Fla.
337), 355.
Sauter v. Carroll (11 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep.
293), 60.
Savage v. Balch (8 Greenl. 37), 73.
Sayage v. O'Neill (44 N. Y. 398), 231.
Savage's Case (84 Va. 582), 240.
Savannah, etc. Co. v. Collins (77 Ga.
376), 217.
Savannah, etc. Co. v. Flanagan (82
Ga. 579), 121.
Saveland v. Green (40 Wis. 431), 33.
Savings, etc. Co. v. Philips (Ga.,
1893, 17 S. E. Rep. 83), 12.
Sawyer v. Baldwin (11 Pick. 494),
143.
Sawyer v. Grandy (N. C, 1893, 18
S. E. Rep. 79), 309.
Sawyer v. Harmon (136 Mass. 414),
150o.
Saxton V. Johnson (14 Johns. 418),
21.
Saxton V. Nimmis (14 Mass. 330), 143.
Say and Sele, In re (1 H. L. Cas.
507), 334.
Sayles v. Baker (5 R. I. 457), 215.
Sayre v. Burdick (47 Minn. 367), 308.
Scaramon v. Scammon (33 N. H. 53),
379.
Scanlan v. Hodges (53 Fed. Rep.
354), 18.
Scattergood v. Wood (79 N. Y. 263),
198.
Schaben v. Ott (6 Ct. CI. 330), 146.
Schackleford v. State (33 Ark. 539),
121.
Schafer v. Sohafer (93 Ind. 586), 124.
Schaser v. State (36 Wis. 429), 9, 341.
Schenck v. Warner (37 Barb. 258),
117.
Schermerhorn v. Schermerhorn (1
Wend. 119), 302.
Scheutze v. Baily (40 Mo. 69), 268.
Schill v. Plumb (55 N. Y. 592), 145.
Schilling v. Territory (3 Wash. Ter.
283), 239.
Schindler v. Rail Co. (87 Mich. 400),
28, 133.
Schlaf V. Railroad Co. (Ala., 1893, 14
S. Rep. 105), 198.
Schlemmer v. State (51 N. J, L. 29),
56.
Schlencker V. State j(9 Neb. 241), 197.
Schmertzell v. Oshkosh (55 Wis.
490), 143a.
Schmidt v. Durnham (Minn., 1892,
53 N. W. Rep. 277), 347.
Schmidt v. Garfield (64 Hun, 294),
10.
Schmidt v. Keen (10 N. Y. S. 267),
74.
Schmidt v. Packard (31 N. E. Rep.
944; 133 Ind. 398), 79, 117.
Schneider v. Haas (14 Oreg. 174),
330.
Schneider v. Manning (121 111. 376 ;
13 N. E. Rep. 267), 222.
Schneider v. Patterson (Neb., 1894,
57 N. W. Rep. 398), 220.
Schneider v. Tombling (34 Neb. 661),
362.
clvi
TABLE OF CASES.
Heferenoes are to sections.
Schniev v. People (23 111. 17), 333.
Schoenberger v. Haokman (37 Pa.
St. 435), 135.
Schoerkin v. Swift (19 Blatch., U. S.,
309), 243.
Scholes V. Hilton (10 M. & W. 16),
284.
SchoU V. Bradstreet (Iowa, 1893, 53
N. W. Rep. 500), 76.
Schoolcraft v. People (117 111. 371),
53.
School Dist. No. 1 v. Lyford (37
Wis. 506), 343.
Schooner Mersey (Blatchf. Prize
Cas. 187), 238.
Schott V. Blanchard (8 Martin, 302),
148.
Schott V. Youree (143 111. 283; 31 N.
E. Rep. 591), 374.
Schram v. Gentry (63 Tex. 283), 136.
Schramm v. O'Connor (98 111. 539),
208.
Schreiner v. Order of Foresters (35
111. App. 576), 156.
Schroeder v. Frey (114 N. Y. 266),
371.
Schroeder v. Railway Co. (47 Iowa,
375), 202, 345.
Schroepel v. Syracuse Plank Road
(7 How. Pr.jN. Y, 94), 73a.
Schubkagel v. Dierstein (131 Pa. St.
53), 169.
Schuckman v. Winterbottom (9 N.
Y. S. 733), 60.
Schuchardt v. Aliens (1 Wall. 359), 7.
Schuble V. Cunningham (14 Daly,
404), 199.
Schuler v. Eckert (90 Mich. 165), 380.
Schuler v. Third Ave. R. Co. (1 Misc.
R. 351), 52.
Schull's Appeal (115 Pa. St. 141), 68.
Schultz V. Lindell (30 Mo. 310), 198.
Schuman v. Pilcher (36 111. App. 43),
876.
Schuniorv. Russell (83 Tex. 83; 18
S. W. Rep. 484), 107, 361.
Schurreger v. Raymond (105 N. Y.
648), 198.
Schurtz V. Kerkon (85 Cal. 277), 35.
Schusler v. State (29 Ind. 394), 6, 7.
Schuster V. State (80 Wis. 107; 49
N. W. Rep. 30), 333.
Schwab V. Heindel(16 Daly, 164), 79.
Schwartz v. Atkin (12 Pa. Co. Ct.
Rep. 373), 126.
Schwartz v. Wood (21 N. Y. S. 1053;
67 Hun, 638), 194, 375.
Schwersenski v. Vinebei'g (19 Can,
S. C. R. 243), 311.
Scobey v. Walker (Ind., 1888, 15 N.
W. Rep. 674), 229.
Scotland Co. v. Hill (113 U. S. 183),
363.
Scott V. Blanchard (8 Martin, 303),
148.
Scott V. Clare (3 Campb. 236), 88, 80.
Scott V. Donovan (153 Mass. 378),
345.
Scott V. Gallagher (11 S. & R. 847),
136.
Scott V. Harris (127 Ind. 520), 309.
Scott V. Hooper (14 Vt. 535), 316.
Scott V. Iron Co. (Ky., 1892, 18 S. W.
Rep. 1012), 233.
Scott V. Lilienthal (9 Bosw. 224), 199.
Scott V. Lloyd (13 Pet. 149), 288.
Scott V. Metro. El. R. Co. (31 N. Y. S,
631), 367.
Scott V. People (63 111. 508), 101, 102.
Scott V. People (141 111. 195; 30 N. E.
Rep. 329), 875.
Scott V. Pinkinton (2 B. & S. 11), 38.
Scott V. Ratcliffe (5 Pet. 81), 233.
Scott V. Scott (95 Mo. 300), 229.
Scott V. United States (7 Ct. CI. 457),
320.
Scott V. Wood (81 Cal. 398, 400), 231,
247.
Scovill V. Baldwin (37 Conn. 816),
329.
Scraggs V. Hill (W. Va., 1893, 17 S.
E. Rep. 185), 321.
Scruggs V. Scruggs (46 Mo. 371), 150a.
Scruggs V. State (15 S. W. Rep. 1074),
10.
Seaman v. Ward (1 Hilt. 52, 55), 331.
TABLE OF CASES.
chni
Beferences are to sections.
Searcy v. State (28 Tex. App. 513),
89.
Searight v. Craighead (1 Penn. 135),
69.
Searles v. State (6 Ohio Cir. Ct. 331),
89, 96, 97.
Searles v. Thompson (18 Minn. 316),
80.
Sears v. Dillinghaci (13 Mass. 358),
138.
Sears V. Mason's Adm'r (Va., 1890,
10 S. E. Rep. 529), 304.
Sears v. Starbird (78 Cal. 225), 362.
Searsmont v. Lincolnville (83 Me.
75), 383.
Seattle, etc. Co. v. Gilchrist (4 Wash.
St. 509), 8.
Seaver v. Boston, etc, Co. (14 Gray,
Mass., 466), 198.
Seavy v. Dearborn (19 N. H. 351),
347.
Second Nat. Bank v. Wenzel (151
Pa. St. 143), 350.
Secor V. Bell (18 Johns., N. Y., 52),
387.
Seebrock v. Fedawa (46 N. W. Rep.
650; 30 Neb. 434), 248.
Seekell v. Norman (73 Iowa, 354; 43
N. W. Rep. 190), 346.
Seers v. So. R. Co. (Mo., 1891, 18
S. W. Rep. 1007), 80.
Segar v. Babcock (R. I., 1893, 26 Atl,
Rep. 357), 220.
Seiler v. Mohn (37 W. Va. 507), 246.
Seiple V. Seiple (35 W. N. C. 488), 250.
Seldner v. Bank (66 Md. 88), 69.
Seligman v. Rogers (113 Mo. 643; 21
S. W. Rep. 94), 351.
Selma v. Perkins (68 Ala. 145), 243.
Selph V. State (22 Fla. 537), 384.
Selwyn's Case (3 Hagg. 748), 232,
233.
Seminary v. Calhoun (35 N. Y. 433),
348.
Semple v. Glenn (91 Ala. 245), 159.
Senger v. Senger (81 Va. 687), 232.
Senn v. Southern Ry. Co. (18 S. W.
Rep. 1007; 108 Mo. 143), 188.
Sessions v. Gilbert (1 Vt. 75), 211.
Setchers v. Keigwin (57 Conn. 573),
60.
Settle V. Alison (8 Ga. 201), 105.
Seven Bishops' Case (12 How. St. Tr.
183, 306), HO.
Severson v. Severson (68 Iowa, 657),
222.
Sewell V. Mead (Iowa, 1892, 52 N.
W. Rep. 237), 250.
Sewell V. Price (32 Ala. 97), 223.
Sewell V. Robbins (139 Mass. 164),
363.
Sexton V. Windell (23 Gratt. 534),
217.
Seymour v. Baily (76 Ga. 338), 249,
252.
Seymour v. Matteson (43 How. Pr.,
N. Y., 496), 73.
Shaack v. Meily (136 Pa. St. 161 ; 36
W. N. C. 569), 309.
Shafer v. Stonebraker (4 G. & J.
345), 160.
Shaffer v. Hahn (111 N. C. 1), 134.
Shafter v. Evans (53 Cal. 32), 12.
Shahan v. Swan (Ohio, 1893, 36 N.
E. Rep. 233), 376.
Shailer v. Corbett (61 Hun, 636), 384.
Shall V. Miller (5 Whart., Pa., 156),
313.
Shamburg v. Commagere (5 Martin,
La., 9), 310.
Shaply T. Abbott (43 N. Y. 443), 84.
Shapt V. WyokoflE (39 N. J. Eq. 376),
214.
Sharey V. Hursey (33 Me. 579), 348.
Sharon v. Morris (39 Kan. 377), 199.
Sharon v. Sharon (79 Cal. 633), 170,
•376.
Sharp V. Blankenship (79 Cal. 411),
115.
Sharp V. Han^ilton (13 N. J. L. 109),
136.
Sharp V. Johnson (23 Ark. 75), 234.
Sharp V. Kansas, etc. Co. (Mo., 1893,
20 S. W. Rep. 93), 197.
Sharp V. Knox (48 Mo. App. 169),
231.
clviii
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferences are to sections.
Sharp V. Sharp et al. (3 Leigh, Va.,
249), 139.
Sharp V. State (51 Ark. 147), 354.
Shaver V. Ehle (16 Johns., N. Y.,
201), 133.
Shaw V. Barnhart (17 Ind. 183), 249.
Shaw V. County Court (30 W. Va.
488 ; 4 S. E. Rep. 430), 373.
Shaw V. State (Tex., 1898. 22 S. W.
Eep. 588), 93.
Shea V. Manky Co. (8 N. Y. S. 333),
147.
Sheahan v. National S. S. Co. (66
Hun, 48), 374.
Shear v. Van Dyke (10 Hun, 528),
335.
Shearer v. Middleton (88 Mich. 621),
24.
Shedden V. Patrick (3 Sw. & Tr.
170), 53.
Sheehan v. Bradford, etc. Co. (15
Civ. Pro. Rep. 439), 285.
Sheehan v. Loler (36 Mo. App. 334),
83.
Sheehy v. Mandeville (7 Cranch,
208), 20.
Sheetz v. Sweeney (136 111. 336), 230.
Sheffield v. Clark (73 Ga. 92), 233.
Sheldon v. Benham (4 Hill, N. Y.,
129), 318.
Sheldon v. Berry (39 Tex. App. 154),
362.
Sheldon v. Booth (50 Iowa, 309), 198.
Sheldon v. Ferris (45 Barb., N. Y.,
134), 383.
Sheldon v. Rivett (110 N, C. 408), 357.
Sheldon v. Sheldon (58 Hun, 601),
170.
Sheldon v. Warner (45 Mich. 638),
141, 195.
Sheldon, In re (18 N. Y. S. 15), 189.
Shelton v. Barbour (3 "Wash. 64), 132.
Shelton v. Dearing (10 B. Mon. 405),
138.
Shenandoah Y. R. v. Griffith (76 Va.
912), 34.
Shepard v. Newhall (54 Fed. Rep.
300), 24.
Shepard v. Rinks (78 111. 188), 363.
Shepard v. Stockham (45 Kan. 344),
153.
Shepard, In re (18 Blatch. 266), 288.
Shephard v. Railway Co. (85 Mo.
629), 202.
Shepherd v. State (81 Neb. 389), 334.
Shepley v. Waterhouse (33 Me. 497),
69.
Shepp V. State (31 Tex. Crim. Rep.
349), 80.
Sheppard v. Yocum (10 Oreg. 410),
347.
Sherer v. Ingerman (110 Ind. 443),
808.
Sheridan's Case (31 Eow. St. Tr.
672), 36.
Sherman v. Atkins (4 Pick. 283), 58.
Sherman v. Buick (93 U. S. 209), 208.
Sherman v. Crosby (11 Johns. 70), 58.
Sherman v. Gundlach (37 Minn. 118),
385.
Sherman v. Kortright (53 Barb.,
N. Y., 367), 8.
Sherman v. Lanier (39 N. J. Eq. 253),
309.
Sherman, In re (34 N. Y. S. 283), 380.
Sherwood v. Baker (105 Mo. 473; 16
S. W. Rep. 938), 150,
Sherwood v. Burr (4 Day, 244), 226.
Sherwood v. Chicago, etc. Co. (88
Mich. 108), 11.
Sherwood v. Merritt (83 Wis. 233),
128.
Sherwood v. Titman (55 Pa. St. 77),
374.
Shewalter v. Williamson (125 Ind.
373), 876.
Shield V. Smith (104 N. C. 57; 10 S.
E. Rep. 76), 310.
Shields v. Smith (37 Ark. 47), 83.
Shifflet V. Morell (4 S. W. Rep. 483 ;
68 Tex. 883), 186.
Shiner v. Abbie (77 Tex. 1), 79.
Shinn v. Hicks (68 Tex, 277),' 106.
Shipley v. Fox (69 Md. 572), 11.
Shirley v. Dewey (17 Ohio, 156),
130.
TABLE OF CASES.
clix
Beferences are to sections.
fihoUy V. Dillar (3 Rawle, Pa., 147),
343.
Shoms V. Ziegler (10 Phila., Pa,, 315),
343.
Short V. Kinzie (80 Ind. 500), 140.
Short V. Lee (3 Jac. & W. 477), 117.
Short V. N. Pac. EI. Co. (45 N. W.
Rep. 706; 1 N. D. 159), 757.
Short V. State (63 Ind. 376), 345.
Shotwell V. Harrison (23 Mich. 410),
134.
Shotwell V. Humblen (35 Miss. 156),
150a.
Shotwell V. McElhenny (101 Mo.
677), 373.
Shotwell v.. Struble (31 N. J. Eq. 31),
305.
Shotwell, In re (11 Pa. Co. Ct. E. 444),
269.
Show V. Barr (39 Iowa, 296), 148.
Showalter v. Bergman (33 N. E. Rep.
686), 10.
Showman v. Lee (80 Mich. 556), 7.
Shradski v. Albright (93 Mo. 43), 333.
Shrewsbury Peerage Case (7 H. L. C.
26), 53.
Shrimpton v. Philbrick (Minn., 1893,
55 N. W. Rep. 551), 367.
Shroeder v. Webster (Iowa, 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 569), 129, 367.
Shroyer v. Miller (3 W. Va. 158), 10.
Shulse V. Me Williams (104 Ind. 513),
349.
Shultz V. Andrews (54 How. Pr. ,
N. Y., 380), 387.
Shultz V. Moore (1 McLean, U. S.,
520), 136.
Shultz V. State (5 Tex. App. 390),
335.
Shutesbury v. Hadley (133 Mass.
242), 143.
Siberry v. State (133 Ind. 677; 33 N.
E. Rep. 681), 39, 201.
Sibley v. Waffle (16 N. Y. 180), 169.
Sibley v. Young (26 S. C. 415), 69.
Sioard v. Peters (6 Pet. 136), 134.
Sickles V. Look (93 Cal. 600), 232.
Sidwell y. Birney (69 Mo. 144), 135.
Siebert v. People (143 III. 571 ; 33 N,
E. Rep. 431), 6, 39, 195, 381.
Silberman v. Clark (96 N. Y. 522),
218.
Silberstein v. Houston, W., St. & P.
F. R. Co. (4 N. Y. S. 843; 52
Hun, 611), 368.
Sill V. Reese (47 Cal. 294), 139.
Sillar V. Brown (9 C. & P. 601), 188.
Silver Lake v. Harding (5 Ohio, 545),
148.
Silver Mining Co. v. Willis (127 TJ. S.
480), 23.
Silvers v. Potter (48 N. J. Eq. 539), 208.
Silvey v. Hodgdon (53 Cal. 363), 265.
Simcox, In re (11 Pa. Co. Ct. R, 445),
353.
Simfield v. Barlows (33 Neb. 785),
150a.
Simis V. Davidson (54 N. Y. Super.
Ct. 335), 83.
Simis V. Railway Co. (30 N. Y. S. 179),
216.
Simmons v. Haas (56 Md. 153), 80.
Simmons v. Havens (101 N. Y. 427),
341.
Simmons v. Johnson (14 Wis. 526),
210.
Simmons v. Partridge (154 Mass.
500), 79.
Simmons v. Spratt (26 Fla. 449), 383.
Simmons v. Spratt (20 Fla. 495), 124,
142.
Simmons v. State (Ala., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 896), 354.
Simmons v. Trumbo (9 W. Va. 358),
238, 242.
Simms v. State (33 S. W. Rep. 876;
32 Tex. Cr. Rep. 277), 34.
Simms v, Todd (73 Mo. 38S), 244.
Simon v. Ash (1 Tex. Civ. App. 202;
20 S. W. Rep. 719), 126.
Simons v. Cooks (29 Iowa, 334), 148.
Simonsen v. Dolan (Mo., 1893, 31 S.
W. Rep. 510), 139.
Simpson v. Dix (131 Mass, 179), 221.
Simpson v. Montgomery (35 Ark.
365), 136.
olx
TABLE OF CASES.
Simpson v. Pearson (31 Ind. 1), 82.
Simpson v. Pegram (112 N. C. 541;
17 S. E. Rep. 430), 11.
Simpson v. State (78 Ga. 91), 354&.
Sims V. Kitchen (5 Esp. 46), 279.
Sims V. Siras (75 N. T. 466), 321.
Sinclair v. Stevenson (1 0. & P. 582),
126.
Sing Cliung Co. v. Young Wing (59
Conn. 535), 360.
Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rook (84 Pa. St.
,442), 157.
Singleton v. O'Blenis (125 Ind. 151),
18.
Singleton v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (66
Mo. 63), 217.
Sinshelmer v. Sliinner (43 111. App,
608), 360.
Sioux City, etc. R. Co. v. Stout (17
Wall. 663), 11.
Sisk V. State (28 Tex. App. 432), 336.
Sisson V. Baltimore (51 Md. 83), 77.
Sisson V. Railroad Co. (14 Mich. 497),
175.
Sisson V. Yost (58 Hun, 609; 12 N.
Y. S. 373), 354.
Sistare v. Hecksler (63 Hun, 634), 56.
Sistare v. Oloott (15 N. Y. State Rep.
248), 199.
Sivav. Wabash Ry. Co. (Mo., 1893,
21 S. W. Rep. 915), 270. '
Sivers v. Sivers (97 Cal. 518; 32 Pao.
Rep. 571), 152, 209.
Sixth Ave. R. Co. v. Metropolitan R.
Co. (34 N. E. Rep. 400; 138 N. Y.
548), 199.
Sixth Ave. R. Co. v. Railroad Co.
, (138 N. Y. 548), 881.
Skaggs V. State (108 Ind. 53), 316, 332.
Skates v. State (64 Miss. 644), 288.
Skattowe v. Railway Co. (22 Oreg.
430), 8.
Skeen v. Springfield Eng. & T. Co.
(42 Mo. App. 158), 145.
Skellie v. James (81 Ga. 419), 170.
Skinner v. Brigham (126 Mass. 132),
138.
Skinner v. Fulton (39 111. 484), 136.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Skinner v. Harrison (116 Ind. 139);
222.
Slack V. Mass (Dud., Ga., 161), 810.
Slade V. State (29 Tex. App. 381), 249.
Slamper v. Gray (Wyo., 1890, 23 Pac.
Rep. 69), 147.
Slaney v. Wade (1 M. & C. 388), 113.
Slater v. Lawson (B. & Ad. 369), 67.
Slatterie v. Pooley (6 M. & W. 664),
38.
Slaughter v. Barnes (3 A. K. Marsh.
412), 244.
Slaymaker v. Gundacker (10 S. &R.,
Pa., 75), 67.
Slaymaker v. Wilson (1 P. & W., Pa.,
216), 189.
Sleeper v. Van Middlesworth (4
Denio, 481), 349.
Slessinger v. Buckingliam (17 Fed.
Rep. 454), 304.
Sleven v. Wallace (64 Hun, 288), 262.
Slingerland v. Slingerland (46 Minn.
100), 124.
Slingman v. Fiedler (3 Mo. App. 577),
237.
Sloan V. Torry (78 Mo. 623), 243.
Slooum V. Prov. St. etc. Co. (10 R. I.
112), 232.
Sluby v. Chaplin (4 Johns. 461), 138.
Slusser v. Burlington (47 Iowa, 300),
121. '
Small V. Williams (87 Ga. 68), 56.
Smalley v. Appleton (70 Wis. 849;
25 N. W. Rep. 729), 194.
Smalley v. FuUerton (Iowa, 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 520), 370.
Smathers v. State (46 Ind. 447), 229.
Smead v. Williamson (16 B. Mon.,
Ky., 492), 66.
Smethurstv. Propes (148 Mass. 261),
863.
Smith V. Arnold (5 Mason, U. S.,
414), 268.
Smith V. Arthur (110 N. C. 400), 262.
Smith V. Bennett (1 Jones, N. C,
872), 326.
Smith V. Blakey (86 L. J. Q. B. 95), 58.
Smith V. Bragg (1 John. Cas. 338), 148,
TABLE OF CASES.
clxi
Beferences are to sections.
Smith V. Brien (6 N. Y. S. 174), 168.
Smith V. Brown (151 Mass. 339), 80,
126.
Smith V. Burnham (3 Sumn. 435, 438,
439), 81, 267.
Smith V. Castles (1 Gray, 108), 354.
Smith V. Caswell (67 Tex. 567; 4 S.
W. Rep. 848), 139, 140.
Smith V. Christopher (16 Abb. Pr.,
N. Y.), 332.
Smith V. Coleman (77 Wis. 343), 209.
Smith V. Com. (Ky., 1893, 17 S. W.
Rep. 68), 283.
Smith V. Crego (7 N. Y. S. 86), 171.
Smith V. Crooker (5 Mass. 538), 128.
Smith V. Davidson (41 Fed. Rep. 172),
76.
Smith V. Dittman (16 Daly, 427), 52.
Smith V. Dunbar (8 Pick. 246), 128.
Smith V. Earl Brownlow (L. R. 9 Eq.
241), 116.
Smith V. Elmer (47 Wis. 479), 140.
Smith V. Engle (44 Iowa, 265), 232.
Smith V. Gugerty (4 Barb. 619), 198.
Smith V. Holcomb (99 Mass. 553),
343.
Smith V. Holland (61 N. Y. 635), 811.
Smith V. Hutchinson (61 Mo. 83), 84.
Smith V. Ingraham (7 Cow. 419), 277.
Smith V. Insurance Co. (89'Pa. St.
287), 218.
Smith V. Janesville (52 Wis. 680),
242.
Smith V. Jones (76 Me. 138), 386, 387.
Smith V. Jones (6 Rand. 38), 138.
Smith V. Kipp (49 Minn. 119), 380.
Smith V. Lindsay (89 Mo. 76), 130.
Smith V. McGuire (67 Ala. 34), 136,
157.
Smith V. Milliken (3 Minn. 319), 74.
Smith V. Mott (65 Hun, 625), 370.
Smith V. Natchez S. Co. (1 How.,
Miss., 479), 124.
Smith V. Navasota (72 Tex. 483), 145.
Smith V. Pelott (68 Hun, 632), 76.
Smith V. Perry (29 N. J. L. 74), 268.
Smith V. Pierce (65 Vt. 200; 25 Atl.
Rep. 1092), 309.
Smith V. Powers (15 N. H. 546), 115.
Smith V. Prescott (17 Me. 877), 133.
Smith V. Putnam (63 N. H. 369), 236.
Smith V. Railroad Co. (76 Tex. 63),
198.
Smith V. Railroad Co. (25 Am. &
Eng. R. R. Cas. 546), 8.
Smilh V. Rankin (20 III. 14), 107.
Smith V. Rentz (131 Pa. St. 169), 60.
Smith V. Rummels (94 Mich. 617),
357.
Smith V. Sainsbury (5 C. & B. 196 ;
34 E. C. L.), 139.
Smith V. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co.
(2 Tenn. Ch. 599), 306.
Smith V. Sanford (13 Pick. 139), 60.
Smith V. Shackelford (9 Dana, 453),
115.
Smith V. Smith (52 N. J. L. 807), 35.
Smith V. Smith (15 N. H. 55), 230.
Smith V. Smith (4 Paige, 432), 331.
Smith V. Speed (50 Ala. 876), 238.
Smith V. State (Tex., 1893, 20 S. W.
Rep. 831), 10.
Smith V. State (58 Ala. 407), 69.
Smith V. State (11 Pac. Rep. 908),
379.
Smith V. State (39 Fla. 108; 10 S.
Rep. 894), 8.
Smith V. State (31 Tex. App. 877),
341.
Smith V. State (88 Ala. 73), 349.
Smith V. State (4 Lea, Tenn. , 438),
330.
Smith V. State (Tex., 1893, 20 S. W.
Rep. 554), 350.
Smith V. State (28 Tex. App. 309),
324.
Smith V. State (48 Tex. 444), 344.
Smith V. State (15 S. E. Rep. 675 ; 88
Ga. 627), 89.
Smith V. State (3 Ohio St. 513), 201.
Smith V. Stickney (17 Barb., N. Y.,
489), 350.
Smith V. Surman (9 B. & C. 561),
353.
Smith V. Swan (23 S. W. Rep. 247,
Tex., 1893), 106.
clxii
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferences are to sections.
Smith V. Tebbitt (L. E. 1 P. & M.
354), 53.
Smith V. The Serapis (49 Fed. Eep.
393), 363.
Smith V. Traders' Bank (83 Tex. 368),
33.
Smith V. Turley (33 W. Va. 14), 168.
Smith V. Utisch (Iowa, 1892, 53 N.
W. Rep. 343), 348.
Smith V. Walton (8 Gill, Md., 77),
139, 139a.
Smith V. Weed (30 Wend. 184), 128.
Smith V. Whittier (95 Cal. 379), 75.
Smith V. Williams (15 S. B. Rep.
130; 89 Ga. 9), 80.
Smith V. Williams (38 Miss. 48), 188.
Smith V. Wilson (1 Tex. Civ. App.
86), 79.
Smith V. Wood (Ind., 1893, 32 N. E.
Eep. 931), 209.
Smith V. Young (1 Campb. 439), 35.
Smith V. Zeigler (63 Hun, 634), 368.
Smith, In re (61 Hun, 101), 170, 171.
Smith & Keating Implement Co. v.
Wheeler (37 Mo. App. 16), 373.
Smythev. Caswell (67 Tex. 567), 139a.
Snell V. State (39 Tex. App. 396 ; 15
S. W. Rep. 733), 101, 103.
Snelling, In re (136 N. Y. 515), 188,
380.
Snider v. Burke (84 Ala. 53), 376.
Snodgrass v. Com. (89 Va. 679; 17
S. E. Rep. 238), 343, 347.
Snohll V. Met. R. Co. (19 D. C. 399), 71.
Snow V. Allen (151 Mass. 51), 212.
Snow V. Railroad (6 Me. 230), 344.
Snow V. Starr (13 S. W. Rep. 673; 75
Tex. 411), 66.
Snowball v. Goodricke (4 B. & Ad.
541), 73.
Snyder v. Berkes (Ala., 4 S. W. Rep.
225), 140.
Snyder v. Brown (4 Watts, 132), 143.
Snyder v. Free (114 Mo. 360; 21 S.
W. Rep. 847), 51.
Snyder v. Harper (24 W. Va. 306), 24.
Snyder v. McKeever (10 Bradw., 111.,
188), 139.
Snyder v. Nations (6 Blackf. 395),
316.
Snyder v. State (59 Ind. 109), 93.
Snyder v. Wolford (38 Minn. 175),
367.
Soaps V. Eichberg (43 111. App. 375),
31, 76, 137.
Society v. Young (3 N. H. 310), 218.
Sober, In re (78 Cal. 477), 210.
Solomons v. Hughes (34 K^n, 281),
143a, 343.
Solyer v. Romanet (53 Tex. 563), 136.
Somers v. Wright (114 Mass. 171), 60.
Somerville v. Winbush (7 Gratt. , Va.,
205), 343.
Sommer v. Smith (90 Cal. 360; 27
Pac. Rep. 308), 18.
Souder v. Sohechterly (90 Pa. St. 83),
70.
South V. State (86 Ala. 617), 806.
Southard v. Rexford (6 Cowen, 254),
354.
Southard v. Sutton (68 Me. 575), 84.
South Baltimore Co. v. Muhlback
(69 Md. 395), 310.
South Bend Iron Works v. Cottrell
(31 Fed. Rep. 356), 317.
Southerland v. W. & W. R. Co. (106
N. C. 100), 57.
South, etc. Co. V. Jeffries (40 Mo.
App. 360), 237.
South, etc. Co. V. Wood (74 Ala. 449),
237.
Southern Exp. Co. v. Thornton (41
Miss. 216), 139.
Southern Ins. Co. v. Wolverton Hd.
Co. (Tex., 1892, 19 S. W. Rep.
615), 159.
Southern Pac. Ry. COi T. Rauh (49
Fed. Rep. 696; 1 C. C. A. 416),
7, 374.
Southwick V. Southwick (2 Sweeny,
234), 168.
Sowry V. BuiBngtop (6 W. Va. 249),
353.
Spabn V. People (117 III. 538), 281.
Spalding v. Sal till (Colo., 1893, 31
Pac. Rep. 486), 343.
TABLE 03? OASES.
clxiii
Beferences are to sections.
Spalding v. Saxton (6 Watts, Pa.,
338), 320.
Spangenberg v, Charles (44 111. App.
536), 363.
Spangler v. Jacoby (14 111. 399), 144.
Sparks v. Com. (89 Ky. 644), 306.
Sparks V. Sparks (51 Kap. 195; '33
Pac. Rep. 893), 171, 250.
Sparks v. Texas Loan Agency (19 S.
W. Rep. 356), 83.
Sparrenberger v. State (53 Ala. 481),
176. -
SpauWing v. Bliss (83 Mich. 311),
193.
Spaulding v. Vincent (34 Vt. 501),
143.
Speake v. United States (9 Cranch,
28), 138.
Spear v. Coate (3 McCord, S. C, 227),
115.
Spear v. Richardson (37 N. H. 36),
333.
Spears v. Burton (31 Miss. 547), 233,
334.
Spears v. Forrest (15 Vt. 435), 349.
Spears v. Ohio (20 Ohio St. 583), 89.
Speiden v. State (3 Tex. App. 156),
127.
Speight V, State (80 Ga. 512), 351.
Spellier, etc. Co. v. Geiger (23 Atl.
Rep. 547; 147 Pa. St. 399), 242.
Spencely, In re (1892, Prob. 142), 233.
Spencer v. Bill (109 N. C. 39), 356.
Spencer v. Carr (45 N. Y. 410), 239.
Spencer v. Dougherty (23 111. App.
399), 351.
Spencer v. Fortescue (16 N. E. Rep.
898), 76.
Spencer v. Fuller (68 Ga. 73), 150a.
Spencer v. Langdon (31 111. 192), 148.
Spencer v. Newton (6 Ad. & E. 633),
387.
Spencer v. Robbins (106 Ind. 580),
309.
Spencer v. State (31 Tex. 64), 97.
Spencer, In re (96,Cal. 448), 333.
Sperb V. Railroad Co. (57 Hun, 588),
871.
Sperry v. Willard (1 Wend., N. T.,
33), 387.
Spicer v. State (69 Ala. 159), 203.
Spiegel V. Hays (118 N. Y. 660), 323.
Spies V. People (122 111. 1; 3 Am. St.
Rep. 320 ; 9 Cr. L. Mag. 829), 10,
69, 70, 881.
Spies V. Price (91 Ala. 166), 346.
Spiller V. Scribner (36 Vt. 247), 310,
230.
Spitz's Appeal (56 Conn. 184 ; 14 Atl.
Rep. 776), 167, 168.
Spofford V. SpoflEord (10 H. H. 254),
77.
Spohn V. Mo. R. R. Co. (116 Mo. 617;
32 S. W. Rep. 690), 350.
Spragins v. White (108 N. C. 449), 206.
Sprague v. Bond (113 N. C. 551 ; 18
S. E. Rep. 701), 79, 310.
Sprague v. Luther (8 R. I. 252), 376.
Sprigg V. Moale (33 Md. 497), 333.
Springer v. Bien (10 N. Y. S. 530; 37
N. E. Rep, 1076), 153.
Springer v. Chicago (37 111. App. 306 ;
135 111. 533), 344.
Springer t. Hall (83 Mo. 93), 140.
Springfield v. Dalboy (139 111. 34; 39
N. E. Rep. 860), 341, 344.
Springfield v. Vivian (63 Mich. 681),
'216.
Springfield R. Co. v. Rhea (44 Ark.
358), 253.
Springs v. Schenck (106 N. C. 153),
'60, 143.
Springsteen v. Sampson (32 N. Y.
703), 371.
Spring Valley, etc. Co. v. Drinkhouse
(93 Cal. 538), 253.
Spurrier v. Front St. Ry. Co. (3 Wash.
St. 659), 250.
Stackpole v. Arnold (11 Mass. 31),
305, 308.
Staifoi-d V. Morning Journal (68 Hun,
467), 7.
StafiEord v. Rice (5 Cowen, 33), 310.
Stafford v. State (55 Ga. 593), 89.
Stallings v. Gottschalk(Md., 1893, 36
Atl. Rep. 534), 58, 314.
clxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferences are to sections.
Stallings v. Hallum (79 Tex. 431),
58.
Stallings v. Whitaker (55 Ark. 494),
139.
Stamford v. Hornitz (49 Ind. 535),
309.
Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney (Ky.,
1893, 17 S. W. Rep. 1025), 8.
Stanfell v. Le welly n (Ky., 1893, 23
S. W. Rep. 645), 380.
Stanley v. Montgomery (103 Ind.
103), 11, 168.
Stanley v. McElrath (86 Cal. 449),
244.
Stanley v. Stanley (113 Ind. 143; 13
N. E. Rep. 361), 168.
Stanton v. Ellis (16 Barb., N. Y., 319),
356.
Stanton v. Hodges (6 Vt. 64), 150a.
Staples V. State (14 S. W. Rep. 603 ;
89 Tenn. 231), 346.
Stapleton v. Crofts (18 Ad. & E. 367,
369), 166.
Stapleton v. King (33 Iowa, 28), 311.
Stapylton v. Clough (3 EI. & Bl. 933),
58.
Star Brick Co. v. Redsdale (36 N. J.
L. 330), 242.
Stark V. Canaday (3 Litt. 399), 215.
Starkey v. People (17 111. 31), 103.
Staser v. Hogan (21 N. E. Rep. 911),
309.
State V. Abbott (8 W. Va. 741), 103.
State V. Adams (40 La. Ann. 218),
166.
State V. Adams (20 Kan. 311), 344.
State V. Adamson (43 Minn. 196),
323, 354.
State V. Ah Clung (14 Nev. 79), 39,
345.
State V. Ah Lee (8 Oreg. 214), 100,
344.
State V. Aldrich (50 Kan. 666), 101.
State V. Alexander (30 S. C. 74), 231.
State V. Alexander (06 Mo. 148), 334.
State V. Alexis (La., 1893, 13 S. Rep.
394), 354.
State V. Allen (107 N. C. 105), 354a.
State V. Allen (57 Iowa, 451), 324.
State V. Aired (115 Mo. 471; 22 S.
W. Rep. 363), 383.
State V. Ames (64 Me. 386), 381.
State V. Anderson (10 Oreg. 448), 5.
State V. Anderson (86 Mo. 309), 6.
State V. Anderson (8 S. Rep. 1, Fla.,
1890), 153.
State V. Appleby (25 S. C. 500), 77.
State V. Ariel (S. C., 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 779), 337.
State V. Armstrong (106 Mo. 395 ; 16
S. W. Rep. 604), 11.
State V. Armstrong (4 Minn. 335),
166.
State V. Arnold (13 Ired., N. C, 184),
345.
State V. Avery (113 Mo. 475; 21 S.
W. Rep. 193), 4, 340.
State V. Baber (74 Mo. 292), 197.
State V. Babtiste (36 La. Ann. 134),
320.
State V. Bailey (16 Ind. 46), 243.
State V. Baker (33 W. Va. 379), 39.
State V. Baker (Oreg., 1893, 32 Pac.
Rep. 161), 343.
State V. Baldwin (36 Kan. 17, 18), 9,
188, 337, 340, 350.
State V. Baldwin (45 N. W. Rep.
297), 103.
State V. Bailer (26 W. Va. 90), 281.
State V. Bank (10 Mo. App. 483), 71.
State V. Banks (40 La. Ann. 736),
324.
State V. Bannister (35 S. C. 290 ; 14
S. E. Rep. 678), 101.
State V. Barber (36 U. S, 313), 241.
State V. Barrows (76 Me. 401), 306,
323.
State V. Bartlett (47 Ind. 396), 146.
State V. Bartlett (55 Me. 200), 354a.
State V. Bassett (34 La. Ann. 1108),
28.
State V. Baxter (83 N. C. 602), 384.
State V. Bayonne (23 La. Ann. 78),
324.
State V. Beasley (84 Iowa, 83 ; 50 N.
W. Rep. 570), 249.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxv
Heferenoes are to sections.
State V. Beaucleigh (93 Mo. 490), 351.
State V. Belcher (13 S. C. 459), 166.
State V. Bener (64 Me. 267), 335.
State V. Bennett (31 Iowa, 24), 166.
State V. Bergen (34 N. J. L. 439), 243.
State V. Berkley (92 Mo. 41), 377,
State V. Bernard (45 Iowa, 334), 167.
State V. Bertin (24 La. Ann. 46), 344.
State V. Best (12 S. E.' Rep. 907; 111
N. C. 638), 23, 53, 110, 176.
State V. Birdwell (36 La. Ann. 859), 9.
State V. Bishop (51 Vt. 287), 229.
State V. Black (42 La. Ann. 861 ; 8
S. Rep. 594), 102, 334.
State V. Blackburn (80 N. C. 474),
101.
State V. Blalock (Phill., N. C, 242),
320.
State V. Blemis (24 Mo. 402), 123.
State V. Block (43 La. Ann. 861), 101.
State V. Blunt (91 Mo. 503), 6.
State V. Bohan (15 Kan. 407), 102.
State V. Boswell (2 Dev., N. C, 300,
210), 350.
State V. Bourne (21 Oreg. 218), 276.
State V. powman (78 N. C. 509), 195.
State V. Boyd (34 Neb. 435; 51 N.
W. Rep. 964), 240, 242.
State V. Bradley (64 Vt, 466), 52.
State V. Branch (112 Mo. 661), 210.
State V. Brecht (41 Minn. 50), 234.
State V. Brewer (98 N. C. 607), 5.
State V. Bronson (49 Kan. 758), 9.
State V. Brooks (29 Mo. App. 286), 5.
State V. Brooks (93 Mo. 542; 5 S. W.
Rep. 257), 91.
State V. Brooks (99 Mo. 137; 12 S.
W. Rep. 633), 11.
State V. Brookshfre (3 Ala. 303), 330.
State V. Broughton (7 Ired. L., N. C,
96), 176.
State V. Brownlee (84 Iowa, 473; 51
N. W. Rep. 2.5), 323.
State V. Buck (63 N. H. 670), 281.
State V. Buckles (26 Kan. 237), 33.
State V. Buell (89 Mo. 595), 346.
State V. Burpee (65 Vt. 1 ;. 25 Atl.
Rep. 964), 11.
State V. Byers (100 N. C. 512), 234,
349, 354&.
State V. Byrd (94 N. C. 634), 181.
State V. Cain (30 W. Va. 177), 384.
State. V. Cain (30 W. Va. 679), 103.
State V. Cain (9 W. Va. 559), 53.
State V. Calligan (41 La. Ann. 574),
,350.
State V. Campbell (1 Rich., S. C,
324), 123.
State V. Garden (84 Ala. 217), 354. '
State V. Cardoza (ll S. C. 19.5), 341.
State V. Carlisle (57 Mo. 102), 89.
State V. Carlos (S. C, 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 832), 376.
State V.' Carpenter (20 Vt. 9), 281.
State V. Carroll (51 N. W. Rep. 1159,
Iowa, 1893), 89.
State V. Carroll (30 S. C. 85), 88, 89.
State V. Carroll (38 Conn. 449), 240.
State V. Carson (36 S. C. 524; 15 S.
E. Rep. 588), 13, 89.
State V. Carter (35 Vt. 378), 168.
State V. Carver (22 Oreg. 602 ; 30
Pac. Rep. 315), 234.
State V. Case (24 N. J. L. 416), 143.
State V. Cassidy (Iowa, 1893, 52 N.
W. Rep. 1), 10.
State V. Cecil (54 Md. 436), 133.
State V. Chamberlain (89 Mo. 129),
346, 354a.
State V. Chambers (39 Iowa, 179), 90.
State V. Chambers (45 La. Ann. 86),
89.
State V. Chambers (43 La. Ann. 1108 ;
10 S. Rep. 347), 87L»
State V. Chisnell (W. Va., 1893, 15 S.
E. Rep. 412), 346.
State V. Choy (84 Cal. 276), 11.
State V. Christian (44 La. Ann. 950),
349.
State V. Chyo Chiagk (92 Mo. 395),
315.
State V. Claire (41 La. Ann. 1067),
374.
State V. Clark (15 S. C. 403), 193.
State V. Clawson (30 Mo. App. 139),
349.
clxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferences are to sections.
State V. Clayton (34 Mo, App. 465),
140.
State V. Cleveland (80 Mo. 108), 339.
-State V. Coella (3 Wash. St. 99), 89,
354.
State V. Coffey (44 Mo. App. 455),
349, 350.
State V. Colclough (31 S. C. 156), 23.
State V. Cole (63 Iowa, 695), 190.
State V. Coleman (20 S. C. 444), 249.
State V. Collins (73 N. C. 144), 23.
State V. Collins (30 Iowa, 85), 167.
State V. Colwell (3 R. I. 132), 337.
State V. Condry (5 Jones' L., N. C,
418), 323.
State V. Cook (23 La. Ann. 347), 312.
State V. Cook (17 Kan. 394), 195.
State V. Cooper (101 N. C. 684), 242.
State V. Corcoran (38 La. Ann. 949),
52.
State V. County (89 Mo. 237), 239.
, State V. Covington (2 Bailey, S. C,
569), 80.
State V. Crabtree (Mo., 1892, 20 S.
W. Rep. 7), 101.
Slate V. Ci-ane (110 N. C. 530), 6.
State V. Crawford (S. G, 1893, 17 S.
E. Rep. 199), 11.
State V. Crawford (33 Am. L. Reg.
21), 249.
State V. Crenshaw (82 La. Ann. 406),
192.
State V. Crow (107 Mo. 341 ; 17 S. W.
Rep. 744), 39, 350.
State V. Crowson (98 N. C. 595), 95.
State V. Cummins (76 Iowa, 133), 335.
State V. Curren (51 Iowa, 113), 10.
State V. Dana (59 Vt. 614 ; 10 Atl.
Rep. 727), 324.
State V. Danforth (48 Iowa, 43), 845.
State V. Daniel (31 La. Ann. 91), 101.
State V. Darnell (1 Houst. C. C, Del.,
321), 91, 95.
State T. Daugherty (17 Nev. 376), 57.
State V. Davenport (S. C, 1893, 17
S. E. Rep. 37), 5.
State V. Davis (48 Kan. 1), 330.
State V. Davis (29 Mo. 391), 350.
State V. Dayton (35 N. J. L. 54), 355.
State V. De Graff (118 N. C. 688; 18
S. E. Rep. 507), 140.
State V. Demareste (41 La. Ann. 617),
93.
State V. Depoister (Nev., 1891, 25
Pac. Rep. 1000), 178.
State v. Dickinson (41 Wis. 299), 103.
State V. Didy (73 N. C. 335), 89, 95.
State V. Dilley (15 Oreg. 70), 342.
State V. Dodson (16 S. C. 453), 320.
State V. Dodson (4 Oreg. 64), 102.
State V. Donellon (12 La. Ann. 1292),
140.
State V. Donelon (La., 1893, 12 S..
Rep. 922), 97.
State V. Doris (40 Conn. 145), 58.
State V. Dorr (83 Me. 213), 23. .
State V. Dorsey (40 La. Ann. 739),,
343.
State V. Downs (91 Mo. 19), 10, 102.
State V. Duffy (57 Conn. 535), 318,
340.
State V. Dufour (31 La. Ann. 804),
93.
State V. Dumphy (4 Minn. 488), 10.
State V. Duncan (Wash., 1893, 35
Pac. Rep. 117), 354.
State V. Duncan (116 Mo. 288; 23 S.
W. Rep. 690), 39, 88, 96, 339.
State V. Duncan (6 Ired. L., N. C,
236), 96.
State V. Dunlop (24 Me. 77), 33.
State V. Dunnell (3 R. I. 127), 239.
State V. Dusenberry (113 Mo. 277),
176, 283.
Slate V. Dyer (59 Me. 503), 166.
State V. Eckler (106 Mo. 585), 10.
State V. Edwards (109 Mo. 318), 6.
State V. Effiuger (44 Mo. App. 81),
241.
State V. Elkins (101 Mo. 344; 14 S.
W. Rep. 116), 101.
State V. Elliott (45 Iowa, 386, 486),
100, 102.
State V. Elwood (17 R. L 763), 10, 39,
340.
State V. Erb (74 Mo. 199), 197.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxvii
Beferences are to sections.
State V. Ervien (N. J., 1888, 13 Atl.
Rep. 136), 265.
State V. Falconer (70 Iowa, 418),
283.
State V. Farley (Iowa, 1898, 53 N. W.
, Rep. 1089), 336.
State V. Farmer (84 Me. 436), 346,
354.
State V. Farnham (10 S. Rep. 531),
357.
State V. Farrington (Iowa, 1894, 57
N. W. Rep. 606), 339.
State V. Fassett (16 Conn. 468), 176.
State V. Feltes (51 Iowa, 495), 91, 93,
197.
State V. Finch (70 Iowa, 316), 199.
State V. Fitzsimmons (30 Mo. 336),
330.
State V. Flack (48 Kan. 146;, 23.
State V. Flanagan (25 Ark. 92), 88.
State V. Fletcher (Oreg., 1893, 83
Pac. Rep. 575), 96, 101, 201.
State V.Flint (60 Vt. 304; 14 Atl.
Rep. 178), 350.
State V. Foley (15 Nev. 64), 820.
State V. Foot Yon (Oreg., 1893, 33
Pac. Rep. 537), 102.
State V. Fox (25 N. J. L. 256), 23.
State V. Frazier (1 Houst., Del., 176),
57, 103, 103.
State V, Freeman (5 Conn. 348), 176.
State V. Fruge (28 La. Ann. 657), 343.
State V. Gafberg (13 La. Ann. 265),
33.
State V. Garrett (71 N. C. 95), 38o.
State V. Ga/vey (25 La. Ann. 191),
93.
State V. Gay (94 N. C. 814), 139.
State V, Gayette (11 R. I. 592), 241.
State V. Geddis (42 Iowa, 268), 197.
State V. Gedioke (43 N. J. L. 86), 193.
State V. Georgia, etc. Co. (109 N. 0.
310), 6.
State V. Gibbs (10 Mont, 313), 384.
State V. Gibson (10 S. E. Rep. 58 ;
33 W. Va. 97), 244.
State V. Gilleck (10 Iowa, 9S), 343.
State V. Gilman (51 Me. 306), 93.
State v.- Ginger (80 Iowa, 574), 192,
377.
State V. Glahn (97 Mo. 579), 89.
State V. Glynn (51 Vt. 577), 350.
State V. Gordet (7 Ired., N. C, 210),
23.
State V. Gott (44 Md. 341), 208.
State V. Gould (26 W. Va. 258), 341.
State V. Grace (18 Minn. 398), 280.
State V. Grady (84 Mo. 330), 176.
State V. Graham (41 N. J. L. 15),
333.
State V. Graham (74 N. C. 646), 39,
303.
State V. Gramelspacher (126 Ind.
398), 240.
State V. Grant (Iowa, 1893, 53 N.
W. Rep. 120), 6, 69, 97.
State V. Grant (23 Me. 171), 89.
State V. Grate (68 Mo. 33), 10.
State V. Graves (95 Mo. 510), 346.
State V. Gray (29 Minn. 144), 23.
State V. Green (15 N. J. L. 88), 357.
State V. Green (1 Houst. C. C, Del.,
217), 9.
State V. Gryder (44 La. Ann. 962),
24.
State V. Gurnee (14 Kan. Ill), 30.
State V. Guyer (6 Iowa, 263), 167.
State V. Hack (Mo., 1893), 33 S. W.
Rep. 1089), 354.
State V. Hall (79 Iowa, 674; 44 N.
W. Rep. 914), 345.
State V. Hambleton (33 Mo. 453),
337.
State V. Hamilton (43 La. Ann. 1204),
346. '
State V. Hamilton (8 S. Rep. 304; 55
Mo. 520), 50, 249.
State V. Hammet (12 Ind. 448), 244.
State V. Hanley (34 Minn. 430), 188.
State V. Harmon (Del., 3 Harr., 567),
89.
State V. Harper (35 Ohio St. 78), 103.
State V. Harris (34 La. Ann. 118),
343.
State V. Harrison (5 Jones, N. C,
115), 7.
clxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
Beferences are to sections.
State V. Harrison (15 S. E. i^ep. 982;
36 W. Va. 729), 231, 283.
State V. Harrod (102 Mo. 590), 52.
State V. Hartman (46 Wis. 478), 343.
State V. Hastings (53 N. H. 452), 140.
State V. Havelin (6 La. Ann. 167), 69.
State V. Hawkins (100 Mo. 666), 324.
State V. Hawkins (18 Oreg. 476; 28
Pao. Rep. 475), 11.
State V. Hayden (51 Vt. 296), 197.
State V. Haynes (71 N. C. 79), 96.
State V. Head (S. C, 1893, 16 S. E.
Rep. 893), 93.
State V. Pleed (57 Mo. 252), 384.
State V. Henderson (Iowa, 1893, 50
N. W. Rep. 758), 9, 227.
State V. Henderson (29 W. Va. 147),
140.
State V. Hendrix (La., 1893, 12 S.
Rep. 631), 378.
State V. Hendrix (98 Mo. 374), 142.
State T. Hennessy (55 Iowa, 299), 324.
State V, Hennings (54 N. W. Rep.
5^7, S. D., 1893), 355.
State V. Higgins (13 R. I. 330), 350.
State V. Hiilstock (La., 1893, 12 S.
Rep. 353), 284.
State V. Hinohman (37 Pa. St. 479),
242.
State V. Hinkle (6 Iowa, 380), 195.
State V. Hirsoh (45 Mo. 439), 250.
State V. Hoblitzelle (85 Mo. 620), 140.
State V. Hockett (70 Iowa, 442; 30
N. W. Rep. 742), 10, 331.
State V. Hodge (50 N. H. 510), 11, 229.
State V. Hogue (6 Jones, N. C, 381),
10.
State V. Holden (44 N. W. Rep. 133;
43 Minn. 350), 89.
State V. Holland^ (83 N. C. 624), 334.
State V. Holt (84 Me. 509), 381.
State V. Hooper (3 Bailey, S. C, 87),
139.
State V. Hopkins (50 Vt. 316), 330.
State V. Hopper (71 Mo. 425), 343.
State V. Home (9 Kan. 119), 348.
State V. Horner (Del., 1893, 26 Atl.
Rep. 78), 281.
State V. Hornsby (8 Rob., La., 554),
377.
State V. Horton (100 N. C. 443), 345,
State V. Houx (109 Mo. 654), 354.
State V. Howard (33 Vt. 380), 53.
State V. Howard (S. C, 1893, 14 S. B.
Rep. 481), 89, 339.
State V. Howard (Mo., 1898, 24 S. W.
Rep. 81), 316.
State V. Hoyt (46 Conn. 330), 53, 231.
State V. Hoyt (47 Conn. 518), 9.
State V. Huff (76 Iowa, 200), 342.
State V. Hulse (106 Mo. 41), 8.
State V. Humble (34 Mo. App. 343),
23.
State V. Hunsaker (16 Oreg. 497), 375.
State Y. Hunter (50 Kan. 302), 5.
State V. Hurley (1 Houst. Cr. Cas.,
Del., 28), 231.
State V. Hyer (39 N. J. L. 598), 334.
State V. Hyuier (15 Nev. 49), 9, 52.
State V. Ice (34 W. Va. 344; 13 S. E.
Rep. 695), 346.
State V. Ihrig (106 Mo. 267), 381.
State V. Ishatu (1 Hawkes, 185), 146.
State V. Jackson (44 La. Ann. 160;
10 S. E. Rep. 600), 350.
State V. Jackson (106 Mo. 174), 226,
306, 324.
State V. Jackson (30 Me. 39). 33.
State V. Jackson (9 Mont. 458), 93.
State V. Jacobs (106 N. C. 695), 335.
State V. James (34 S. C. 579), 172.
State V. Jansen (33 Kan. 98), 137.
State V. Jennett (88 N. C. 605), 339.
State V. Jerome (83 Iowa, 749 ; 48
N. W. Rep. 722), 52.
State V. Johnson (29 La. Ann. 717),
333.
State V. Johnson (67 N. C. 58), 202.
State V. Johnson (94 Ala. 35), 9.
State V. Johnson (34 N. W. Rep. 177;
73 Iowa, 396), 101, 346.
State V. Johnson (30 La. Ann. 884), 89.
State V. Johnson- (41 La. Ann. 574),
277.
State V, Johnson (12 Nev. 134), 123.
State V. Johnson (37 Minn. 493), 5, 6, 7.
TABLE OF OASES.
clxix
Beferenoes are to sections.
State V. Jolly (3 Dev. & Bat. 110),
168.
State V. Jones (50 N. H. 370), 249.
State V. Jones (54 Mo, 478), 90.
State* V. Jones (13 S. E. Rep. 335), 173.
State V. Jones (41 Kan. 309), 301.
State V. Jones (44 La. Ann. 1130), 11.
State V. Jones (39 S. C. 301), 352,
354.
State V. Jones (50 N. H. 369), 231.
State V. Josey (64 N. C. 56), 6.
State V. Justus (11 Oreg. 170), 301.
State V. Keeland (90 Mo. 337), 22.
State V. Keith (63 N. C. 140), 320.
State V. Kellerman (13 Kan. 135),
324.
State V. Kelly (73 Mo. 608), 229.
Slate V. Kelsey (44 N. J. Law, 34),
135.
State V. Kemon (R. I., 1893, 26 Atl.
Rep. 199), 10.
State V. Kibliug (63 Vt. 636), 11.
State V. Kilgore (70 Mo. 546), 23.
State V. Kinder (96 Mo. 548), 89.
State v.- King (37 Iowa, 463), 143a.
State T. King (86 N. C. 603), 132, 133.
State V. Klinger (46 Mo. 329), 197.
State V. Knapp (45 N. H. 148), 196,
329.
State V. Knight (43 Me. 1), 193, 334.
State V. Knowles (48 Iowa, 593), 39.
State V. Koontz (5 S. E. Rep. 328),
139a.
State V. Kriechbaum (81 Iowa, 633;
47 N. W. Rep. 872), 250.
State V. Lantz (23 Kan. 728), 343.
State V. Laque (41 La. Ann. 1070),
122.
State V. Larkln (49 N. H. 39), 69.
State V. Lautenschlager (22 Minn.
514), 23.
State V. Lawhorne (66 N. C. 638),
90.
State V. Leabo (89 Mo. 247), 188.
State V. Lefaivre (53 Mo. 470), 217.
State V. Lehman (S. D., 1891, 49 N.
W. Rep. 31), 197.
State V. Lentz (45 Minn. 377), 8.
State V. Leuth (5 Ohio Cir. Ct. R.
94), 93.
State V. Libby (84 Me. 461), 23.
State V. Liquor (73 Me. 278), 242.
State V. Litchfield (58 Me. 267), 324.-
State V. Littlefield (3 R. L 124), 76.
State V. Lockwood (58 Vt. 378), 330.
State V. Long (37 W. Va. 266), 140.
State V. Lopez (15 Nev. 407), 344.
State V. Loughlin (30 Atl. Rep. 981,
N. H., 1890), 142.
State V. Lowry (74 N. C. 121), 241.
State V. Lucas (Oreg., 1893, 33 Pac.
Rep. 538), 334.
State V. Lund (49 Kan. 530), 283.
State V. Lurch (12 Oreg. 99), 346.
State V. Lyon (81 N. C. 600), 333.
State V. Magoon (50 Vt. 333), 374.
State V. Maguire (Md., 1893, 21 S.
W. Rep. 212), 381.
State V. Mahan (33 Vt. 241), 93.
State V. M^her (74 Iowa, 77), 375.
State V. Maier (36 W. Va. 757), 188,
197, 231.
State V. Malloy (31Fed. Rep. 19), 190.
State V. Manceaux(42La. Ann. 1164),
283.
State V. Marshall (Mo., 1893, 22 S.
W. Rep. 45), 9.
State V. Martin (15 S. W. Rep. 529;
103 Mo. 508), 757.
State V. Martin (N. J., 3 Or. L, Mag.
44), 231.
State V. Martin (74 Mo. 547), 9.
State M. Mason (113 Mo. 374), 57.
State V. Massey (104 N. C. 877), 377.
State V. Mathes(90 Me. 571), 101, 103,
103.
State V. Mathews (98 Mo. 135), 306,
334, 346.
State V. Mathews (78 N. 0. 533), 10.
State V. Maylook (9 Oreg. 54), 143.
State V. Mayor (11 Humph. 217), 243.
State V. McCafferty (63 Me. 233), 241.
State V. McCanon (57 Mo. 160), 102.
State V. McClain (49 Kan. 730), 153.
State V. McCarthy (43 La. Ann. 541),
277.
clxx
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to sections.
State V. McCord (8 Kan. 161), 167.
State V. McCoy (111 Mo. 517), 103.
State V. McDonald (43 N. J. L. 591),
168.
State V. McDowell (N. C, 7 S. E.
Rep. 785), 211.
State V. McFarlain (41 La. Ann. 686),
340, 3546.
State V. McGahey (N. D., 1893, 55
N. W. Rep. 753), 340, 341.
" State V. McGee (46 N. W. Rep. 764;
81 Iowa, 17), 97.
State V. McGuff (88 Ala. 151), 819.
State V. McGulve (87 Mo. 643), 129.
State V. McGuire (15 R. I. 28), 346,
854.
State V. Mcintosh (S. C, 1898, 17 S.
E. Rep. 446), 11.
State V. McKean (36 Iowa, 343), 833.
State V. McKenzie (102 Mo. 620), 97.
State V. McNeil (33 La. Ann. 1333),
138.
State V. Medlecott (9 Kan. 257), 101.
State V. Merriman (S. C., 1891, 13 S.
E. Rep. 619), 354.
State V. Mewherter (47 Iowa, 88),
176.
State V. Michael (37 W. Va. 565),
319.
State V. Middleham (62 Iowa, 150),
384.
State V. Miller (47 Wis. 530), 140.
State V. Miller (35 Kan. 328), 93.
State V. Miller (43 La. Ann. 186), 89.
State V. Miller (100 Mo. 606), 307, 322,
382.
State V. Miller (98 Mo. 263), 340, 350.
State V. Milling (35 S. C. 16 ; 14 S. E.
Rep. 384), 5, 334.
State V. Mills (91 N. C. 581), 101.
State V. Milton (18 Mo. 417), 150a.
State V. Mims (S. C, 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 850), 97.
State V. Minnick (15 Iowa, 128), 240.
State V. Minor (Mo., 1898, 33 S. W.
, Rep. 1085), 226, 306, 346.
State V. Minton (33 S. W. Rep. 808 ;
116 Mo. 605), 78.
State V. Mitchell (Phill., N. C, L.
447), 97.
State V. Mitchell (57 W. Va. 565),
113.
State V. Moelsohein (53 Iowa, 310),
10, 388.
State V. Moncla (39 La. Ann. 368), 88.
State V.Moore (11 Ired. L., N. C,
160), 333.
State V. Moore (101 Mo. 316), 329.
State V. Moore (Mo., 1893, 33 S. W.
Rep. 1086), 57.
State V. Moorman (27 S. C. 22), 89.
State V. Moran (34 Iowa, 453), 324.
State V. Moran (35 W. Va. 360), 884.
State V. Mordecai (68 N. C. 207), 39.
State V. Morphy (33 Iowa, 270), 250.
State V. Morrill (2 Dev,, N. C, L.
269), 710.
State V. Morris (109 N. O. 820), 350.
State V. Morrison (3 Dev. 299), 250.
State V. Mounts (106 Mo. 226), 4.
State V. Mowry (37 Kan. 869 ; 15 Pac.
Rep. 282), 231.
State V. Moxley (14 S. W. Rep. 969 ;
15 id. 556; 103 Mo. 374), 39, 846.
State V. Mulkern (85 Me. 106), 4.
State V. MuUins (101 Mo. 514), 88, 93.
State V. M,urdy (81 Iowa, 88), 102.
State V. Murfreesboro (11 Humph.,
Tenn., 217), 242.
State V. Murphy (55 Vt. 449), 720.
State V. Murphy (La., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 239), 346.
State V. Myers (82 Mo. 558; 22 S. "W.
Rep. 383), 376.
State V. Nance (25 S. C. 168), 101.
State V. Neil (6 Ala. 685), 166.
State V. Nelson (101 Mo. 464), 103.
State V. Nett (50 Wis. 534), 710.
State V. Nettlebush (30 Iowa, 257),
103.
State V. Newhouse (38 La. Ann. 863;
2 S. Rep. 799), 101.
State V. New York, etc. Co. (N. J.
L., 1890, 8 Atl. Rep. 290), 83.
State V. Norris (9 N. H. 101), 315.
State V. Ober (53 N. H. 459), 354a.
TABLH OP CASES.
clxxi
Eeferences are to sections.
State V. O'Brien (7 R. I. 336), 189.
State V. O'Brien (46 N. W. Rep. YSS ;'
81 Iowa, 88), 103, 134, 354.
State V. Owsley (111 Mo. 450), 330.
State V. Oxford (30 Tex. 438), ITG.
State V. Packer (80 N. C. 439), 341.
State V. Pagels (93 Ma 300), 231, 377.
State V. Parker (96 Mo. 383), 350.
State V. Parks (109 N. C. 813), 10.
State V. Parrish (Busb. Law, 239), 93.
State V. Parrott (79 N. C. 615), 166.
State V. Pattei-son (45 Vt. 308), 103,
249.
State V. Patterson (74 N. 0. 157), 354.
State V. Pearce (15 Nev. 188), 10.
State V. Peelle (134 Ind. 515; 24 N.
E. Rep. 440), 36.
State V. Penn. (13 Bank. Reg. 464),
51.
^tate V. Perigo (45 N. W. Rep. 399;
80 Iowa, 37), 103.
State V. Perkins (66 N. O. 136), 350.
State V. Peters (107 N. 0. 876), 384.
State V. Pettavvay (3 Hawks,, S. C,
523), 334.
State V. Pfeflferlee (36 Kan. 90), 333,
354.
State V. Phair (48 Vt. 366), 144, 185.
State V. Pike (65 Me. Ill), 193.
State V. Place (83 Pac. Rep. 736; 5
Wash. St, 773), 9.
State V. Plum (49 Kan. 679), 11, 176.
State V. Poll (1 Hawks, 444), 103.
State V. Porter (La., 1893, 12 S. Rep.
832), 9.
State V. Porter (10 Rich., S. C, 145),
28.
State V. Pose (33 La. Ann. 933), 343.
State V. Postlewait (14 Iowa, 446),
344.
State V. Potter (42 Vt. 495), 324.
State V. Potter (108 Mo. 424), 378.
State V. Potts (Iowa, 1893, 49 N. W.
Rep.-845), 378.
State V. Powers (51' N. J. L. 433; 17
Atl. Rep. 969), 316.
State V. Prater (26 S. C. 198; 2 S. E.
Rep. 108), 334.
L
State V. Pratt (88 N. C. 639), 80.
State V. Pratt (98 Mo. 483), 323, 376.
State V. Price (13 Gill & J. 360), 237.
State V. Pritcher (101 N. C. 667), 346.
State V. Rachoe (37 Minn. 372), 140.
State V, Rainsbarger (71 Iowa, 746;
31 N. W. Rep. 865), 166.
State V. Ramsay (83 Mo. 133), 103.
State V. Ramsay (Mont., 1892, 28 Pac.
Rep. 258), 376.
State V. Rash (13 Ired., N. C, L.
383), 9.
State V. Raven (115 Mo. 419; 23 a
W. Rep. 876), •350.
State V. Raymond (39 Pac. Rep. 733;
13 Mont. 226), 8.
State V. Raymond (53 N. J. L. 260,
538), 334, 34.3.
State V. Raymond (46 Conn. 345),
339.
State V. Reader (GO Iowa, 537), 289.
State V. Reed (63 Iowa, 40), 6.
State V. Reed (62 Me. 129), 10, 88,
350.
State V. Reed (89 Mo. 168), 341.
State V. Reid (45 La. Ann. 163), 31.
State V. Reidel (Del., 1888, 14 Atl.
R?p. 550), 231.
State V. Renfrew (111 Mo. 589), 381.
State V. Richardson (34 Minn. 118),
357.
State V. Rights (83 N. C. 675), 356.
State V. Riley (43 La. Ann. 995; 8
S. Rep. 469), 93.
State V. Roberts (63 Vt. 159), 39.
State V. Robinson ( — La. Ann. 340),
103.
State V. Rogers (108 Mo. 203; 18 S.
W. Rep. 976), 349.
State V. Rogers (113 N. C. 874; 17
S. E. Rep. 297), 89.
State V. Rose (92 Mo. 201), 820.
State V. Row (Iowa, 1892, 46 N. W.
Rep. 873), 36.
State V, Rowe (98 N. C. 629 ; 4 S. E.
Rep. 506), 350.
State V. Ruff (Ind., 1893, 33 N. B.
Rep. 724)i 151a.
clxxii
TABLE OP CASES.
Heferences are to seotiona.
State V. Runnels (28 Ark. 131), 333.
Slate V. Rush (95 Mo. 199), 307.
State V. Russell (33 Pac. Rep. 854),
101.
State V. Samuels (33 Mo. App. 649).
76.
State V. Sandars (106 Mo. 188), 6,
349, 346.
State V. Sanders (68 Mo. 302), 343.
State V. Sasse (73 Wis. 3), 344.
State V. Sauer (43 Minn. 358), 35!.
State V. Saunders (12 Pac. Rep. 441:
14 Oreg. 300), 103.
State V. Schaeter (Mo., 1893, 33 S.
W. Rep. 447), 349.
State V. Sclileagel (50 Kan. 335), 10.
State V. Schmidt (73 Iowa, 469; 35
N. W. Rep. 590), 101, 103.
State V. Sc.ott(109Mo. 326; 19 S. W.
Rep. 89), 229.
State V. Secrest (80 N. C. 450), 193.
State V. Seiner (17 Mo. App. 39), 337.
State V. Senn (32 S. C. 392; 11 S. E.
Rep. 293), 93.
State V. Severson (79 Iowa, 653), 319,
333.
State V. Shafer(Oreg., 1893, 33 Pac.
Rep. 545), 101, 102.
State V. Shelton (2 Jones' N. C. L.
360), 103.
State V. Sherman (42 Mo. 210), 343.
State V. Shinbone (46 N. H. 497), 133.
State V. Slagle (83 N. C. 630), 195.
State V. Slingerland (19 Nev. 135),
8, 381.
State V. Smith (77 N. C. 488), 334.
State V. Smith (73 Iowa, 33), 5.
State V. Smith (54 Iowa, 104), 345.
State V. Smith (32 Me. 369), 33.
State V. Smith (35 La. Ann. 457), 88.
State V. Smith (6 R. I. 33), 343.
State V. Smith (49 Conn. 376), 301.
State V. Smith (33 Mo. 370), 196.
State V. Smith (4 Phill., N. C, 302),
196.
State V. Snowden(l Brews., Pa., 218),
244.
State V. Sopher (70 Iowa, 494), 89.
State V. Sorter (Kan., 1893, 34 Pac.
Rep. 1036), 348.
State V. Spalding (34 Minn. 361), 103.
State V. Spencer (30 La. Ann. 363),
101.
State V. Spenser (31 N. J. L. 196),
249.
State V. Spillman (43 La. Ann. 1001),
283.
State V. Stair (87 Mo. 268), 139, 139a.
State V. Starlc (1 Strobh., S. C, L.
479), 331.
State V. Starling (6 Jones, N. C, L.
366), 231.
State V. Steifel (106 Mo. 139), 303,
323.
State V. Sterritte (68 Iowa, 731), 10.
State V. Stice (Iowa, 1893, 55 N. W.
Rep. 17), 9.
State V. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. (29
Mo. App. 361), .38.
State V. Stovve (2 Wash. St. 206), 378.
State V. Stubbs (13 S. E. Rep. 90;
108 N. C. 774), 8.
State V. Sullivan (28 N. E. Rep. 381 ;
114 III. 34), 346.
State V. Sullivan (51 Iowa, 143), i03,
103.
State V. Swain (68 Mo. 605), 348.
State V. Swanze (30 La. Ann. 1323),
234.
State V. Swift (69- Ind. 505), 340
Slate V, Tall (43 Minn. 373), 354.
State V. Tanner (38 La. Ann. 307),
343.
State V. Tatro (50 Vt. 483), 91.
State V. Taylor (20 S. W. Rep. 339;
111 Mo. 538), 5.
State V, Taylor (1 Houst. Cr. Cas.,
Del., 436), 349.
State V. Taylor (44 La. Ann. 783; 11
S. Rep. 132), 9, 10.
State V. Taylor (Mo., 1893, 24 S, W.
Rep. 449), 354.
State V. Taylor (Mo., 1893, 23 S. W.
Rep. 806), 88, 354.
State V. Teipner (36 Minn. 535), 191.
Otate V, Teissedre (30 Kan. 484), 241.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxiii
Beferences are to sections.
State V. Tenison (32 Pac. Rep. 429 ;
42 K#n. 302), 346.
State V. Terrell (12 Rich., S. C, 321),
102, 195.
State V. Thomas (111 Ind. 516; 13 N.
E. Rep. 85), 330.
State V. Thorn ason (1 Jones, N. C.
Law, 374), 102, 350.
State V. Thompkins (71 Mo. 63), 343.
State V. Thompson (83 Mo. 257), 343.
State V. Tibeau (30 Vt. 100), 97.
State V. Tilghman(Ired.,N. C, Law,
573), 101.
State V. Tooney (26 Minn. 283), 243.
State V. Trounce (Wash., 1893, 33
Pac. Rep. 750), 333, 384.
State V. Turlington (103 Mo. 643),
101, 383.
State V. Turner (110 Mo. 196), 6,
346.
State V. Turner (15 S. E. Rep. 603:
36 S. C. 534), 334, 349, 350.
State V. Uhrig (106 Mo. 367), 354a.
State V. Ulrich (110 Mo. 350), 166,
244.
State V. Underwood (44 la. 'Ann.
853), 381, 346.
State V. Van Winkle (80 Iowa, 15),
339, 356.
State V. Vari (35 S. C. 175; 14 S. E.
Rep. 892), 330.
State V. Vincent (1 Houst., Del., 1),
93.
State V. Vincent (24 Iowa, 570), 334,
249.
State V. Von Sachs (30 La. Ann. 943),
89.
State V. Vorback (66 Mo. 168), 23.
State V. Walker (77 Me. 490), 56.
State V. Walker (Mo., 1888, 9 S. W.
Rep. 646), 323, 324, 346.
State V. Waller (88 Mo. 402), 23.
State V. Walsh (44 La. Ann. 1122),
9, 346.
State V. Walters (7 Wash. 246; 34
Pac. Rep. 938, 1098), 350.
State y. Ward (39 Vt. 335), 140.
State V. Ward (81 Vt 179), 830.
State V. Watson (7 S. C. 63). 6.
State V. Watson (31 Mo. 361), 334.
State V. Weasel (30 La. Ann. 919), 97.
State V. Weaver (101 N. C. 758), 233.
State V. Weddington (103 N. C. 364),
346.
State V. Welch (79 Me. 99), 315.
State V. Weldon (S. C, 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 688), 316.
State V. Wells (111 Mo. 533), 6, 348.
State V. Wells (48 Iowa, 671), 234.
State V. Wentworth (65 Me. 334),
354a.
State V. Wentworth (37 N. H. 196),
53, 91.
State V. West (45 La. Ann. 14; 13 a
Rep. 173), 96.
State V. West (1 Houst., Del., 371),
93, 249.
State V. Westfall (49 Iowa, 328), 103.
State V. Whisenhurst (3 Hawks, 458),
315.
State V. White (19 Kan. 445), 174.
State V. Whitfield (109 N. C. 876),
State V.
State V.
State V.
State V.
537),
State y.
Rep,
State V.
State y.
103.
State V.
343.
State V.
State y.
250.
State V.
103.
State y.
State V.
State y.
State y.
State V.
189,
Whiton (111 N. O. 95), 6, 9.
Wieners (66 Mo. 13), 345.
Williams (67 N. C. 13), 103.
Willingham (33 La. Ann.
339.
Willis (Iowa, 1889, 44 N. W.
. 699), 277.
Wilner (40 Wis. 304), 331.
Wilson (33 La. Ann. 559),
Wilson (40 La. Ann. 757),
Wilson (34 Kan. 189), 101.
Wilson (39 Mo. App. 114),
Wilson (111 N. C. 695),
Wingo (66 Mo. 181), 349.
Wise (33 S. C. 383), 383.
Withan (73 Me. 531), 354a.
Wolf (8 Conn. 93), 316.
Wood (53 N. H. 484), 176,
196.
clxxivr
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferenoes are to sections.
State V. Woodruff (67 N. C. 89), 344,
345.
State V. Woods (49 Kan. 237 ; 30 Pac.
Rep. 520), 85.
State V. Woodward (Iowa, 1892, 5
N. W. Rep. 885), 5.
State V. Workman (S. C, 1893), 16
S. E. Rep. 770), 378.
State V. Workman (15 S. C. 540, 546),
166.
State V. Wright (75 N. C. 439), 350.
State V. Wright (41 La. Ann. 600),
166.
State V. Weight (70 Iowa, 153; id.
759), 233.
State V. Young (1 Winst., N. C, L.,
No. 1, 136), 93.
State V. Young (105 Mo. 634), 334.
State V. Zellers (7 N. J. L. 220), 93.
State V. Zimmerman (47 Kan. 342),
140.
State V. Zoun (23 Oreg. 591 ; 30 Pac.
Rep. 517), 331.
Staunton v. Parker (19 Hun, 55),
178.
Stavinow v. Home Ins. Co. (43 Mo.
App. 513), 337.
Stayner v. Joyce (Ind., 1889, 32 N.
E. Rep. 89), 131.
Stead V. Corse (4 Cranch, 403), 318.
Stead V. Worcester (150 Mass. 341),
198.
Steageld v. State (34 Tex. 287 ; 3 S.
W. Rep. 771), 178.
Steagels v. State (32 Tex. App. 464),
93.
Stearns v. Hall (9 Gush., Mass., 31),
314.
Stearns v. Jones (13 Allen, 583), 336.
Steele v. Prickett (2 Stark. 463, 466),
110.
Steele v. Shafer (39 111. App. 185), 79.
Steele v. Stuart (1 Phil. Ch. 471), 169.
Steele v. Ward (30 Hun, 355), 309.
Steen v. State (20 Ohio St. 333), 167.
Stein V. Bowman (13 Pet. 331), 166.
Stein V. Swenson (49 N. W. Rep. 55 ;
46 Minn. 360), 131, 133, 134.
Steiner v. Ellis (7 S. Rep. 803, Ala.,
1890), 230. ,
Steirle v. Kaiser (13 S. Rep. 839, La.,
1893), 319.
Stephen v. State (11 Ga. '335), 237.
Stephens v. Allen (11 Oreg. 188), 223.
Stephens v. McCormick (5 Bush,
181), 231.
Stephens v. Vroman (16 N. Y. 301),
80.
Stephenson v. Arnold (28 Ind. 278),
345.
Stephenson v. Richardson (45 Mo,
App. 544), 229.
Stephenson v. State (110 Ind. 358),
101.
Stepp V. Nat. L. & Mut. Ass'n (37
S. C. 417; 16 S. E. Rep, 134), 186.
Stepp V. State (31 Tex. Grim. App.
349), 197.
Sterling v. Buckingham {46 Conn.
464), 55.
Sterling v. Callahan (94 Mich. 586),
334.
Stern v. Herren (101 N. C. 516), 276.
Stern t. Isman (51 Hun, 324), 309.
Sterne v. State (20 Ala. 43), 237.
Stetson V. Freeman (35 Kan, 533),
115.
Stevens v. Castel (63 Mich. 118), 57.
Stevens v. Dennett (51 N. H. 334),
83, 84.
Stevens v. Hampton (46 Mo. 104),
136.
Stevens v. Ludlum (46 Minn. 160),
84.
Stevens v. Minneapolis (43 Minn.
136; 43 N. W. Rep. 843), 199.
Stevens V. Van Cleve (4 Wash. C. C.
363), 131.
Stevenson v. Gelsthorpe (10 Mont.
503), 193.
Stevenson v. Gunning (85 Atl. Rep,
697; 64 Vt. 601), 370.
Stevenson v. Marony. (6 Ind. 330),
347,
Stevenson v. Reeves (8 9, Bep, 695),
141.
TABLE OF OASES.
clxxv
References are to sections.
Stevenson v. Smith (28 N. H. 13),
■286.
Stevenson v. Wallace (27 Gratt.,
Va., 77), 336.
Steward v. Clinton (79 Mo. 604), 143a.
Stewart v. Armstrong (56 Fed. Eep.
167), 83. ,
Stewart v. Chadwick (8 Iowa, 463),
50.
Stewart v. Cincinnati, etc. Co. (89
Mich. 315), 344.
Stewart v. De Loach (86 Ga. 729), 32.
Stewart v. Kip (5 Johns. 256); 303,
309.
Stewart v. Munford (91 111. 158), 83.
Stewart v. Preston (1 Fla. 10), 138.
Stewart v. Railroad Co. (86 Mich.
315), 344.
Stewart v. Register (108 N. C. 588),
863.
Stewart v. Smith (33 111. 397), .217.
Stewart v. State (63 Md. 412), 33.
Stewart's Will (1 Con. Sur. 86), 333.
Stice, Ex parte (70 Cal. 51), 333.
Sticker v. Groves (5 Whaj-t. 886),
376.
Stickney v. Stickney (131 U. S. 337,
337), 167, 168.
Stier V. Oscaloosa (41 Iowa, 353);
343.
Stierle V. Kaiser (La., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 839), 355.
Stiff V. Ashton (155 Mass. ItJO; 39 N.
E. Rep. 303), 82.
Stiles V. Giddens (31 Tex. 783), 308.
Stiles V. Probst (69 111. 382), 138.
Stiles V. Stewart (13 Wend. 473), 344.
Stiles V. Western R. Co. (8 Met.,
Mass., 44), 73o.
Still V. Tompkins (154 Pa. St. 43),
212.
Stillingsv. Timmins (153 Mass. 147;
35 N. E. Rep. 50), 305, 208.
Stillwater Co. v. Coover (26 Ohio St.
520). 198.
Stillwell V. Archer (18 N. Y. S. 888;
64 Hun, 169), 11, 249.
Stillwell V. Far well (61 Vt. 286), 346.
Stillwell V. Patton (18 S. W. Rep.
1075 ; 108 Mo. 35.3), 139i
Stillwell & B. Mfg. Co. V. Phelps
(130 U. S. 520), 199.
Stimpson v. Brooks (3 Blatchf. 436),
359.
Stinchfield v. Emerson (53 Me. 465),
233.
Stinchfield v. Milliken (71 Me. 567),
233.
Stinde v. Goodrich (3 Redf. Sur. 87),
232.
Stirnes v. Schofield (Ind., 1893, 31
N, E. Rep. 411), 249.
Stocking V. St. Paul Trust Co. (39
Minn. 40), 37.
Stockman v. Brooks (37 Pac. Rep.
746), 143a.
Stockton V. Johnson (6 B. Mon., Ky.,
409), 69.
Stockton V. Williams (1 Dong., Mich.,
570), 50.
Stockton Sav. Bank v. Staples (98
Cal. 189; 33 Pac. Rep. 936), 84.
Stoddard v. Bbxton (41 Iowa, 583),
229.
Stoddard v. Hill (S. C, 1893, 17 S. B.
Rep. 138), 139, 139a.
Stoddard v. Sloan (65 Iowa, 680),
243.
Stoddard v. Town (33 N. E. Rep.
948), 188.
Stodolka V. Novotus (III., 1893, 33 N.
E. Rep. 534), 136.
Stokeley v. Gordon (8 Md. 496), 333.
Stokoe V. St. Paul, M. & M. R Co.
(40 Minn. 546), 173.
Stokes V. People (53 N. Y. 164), 334.
Stokes V. State (5 Baxt., Tenn., 619),
203,
Stollenmalck v. Thacher (115 Mass.
224), 73a.
Stondennie v. Harper (81 Ala. 243),
336.
Stone V. Byron (4 Dowl. & L. 893),
313.
Stone V. Chicago, etc. Co. (66 Mich.
76; 33 N. W. Eep. 24), 190.
clxxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferences are to sections.
Stone V. Geyser, etc. Co. (53 Cal. 315),
225.
Stone V. Hubbard (7 Gush. 595), 141.
Stone V. Hunt (114 Mo. 66; 21 S. W.
Rep. 454), 308.
Stone V. Railroad Co. (S. D., 1893, 53
N. W. Rep. 189), 283.
Stone V. Thomas (13 Pa. St. 369), 139.
Stone Cattle Co. v. Boon (73 Tex.
158), 143.
Stoner v. Devilbiss (70 Md. 160), 341.
Stonesifer v. Kilburn (94 Cal. 33),
373.
Stooksberry v. Swan (Tex., 1893, 31
S. W. Rep. 694), 106.
Stoops V. Smith (100 Mass. 63), 333.
Storer v. Gowen (18 Me. 174), 80.
Storey v. Flanigan (57 Tex. 649), 107.
Storm V. United States (94 U. S. 84),
308.
Stout V. Slattery (12 III. 163), 357.
Stover V. People (58 N. Y. 316), 229,
3a4a.
Stowe V. Bishop (58 Vt. 498), 186.
Stratton v. Hawks (43 Kan. .541), 126.
Stratton v. Upton (36 N. H, 581), 376.
Strauss v. Abraham (32 Fed. Rep.
210), 351.
Strauss v. Gross (Tex., 1893, 21 S. W.
Rep. 305), 314.
Strawbridge v. Spain (8 Ala. 830),
73a.
Stribling v. Atkinson (79 Tex. 162),
105.
Strickland v. Hudson (55 Miss. 235),
133.
Stringer v. Frost (116 Ind. 477), 382.
Stringham v. Insurance Co. (4 Abb.
App. Dec, N. Y., 315), 73a.
Strode v. Churchill (2 Litt., Ky., 75),
148.
Strode v. MaoGowan (2 Busb, Ky.,
621), 234.
Strohm v. Railroad Co. (96 N. Y.
305), 193.
Strong V. Bradley (13 Vt. 9), 147.
Strong V. Case (Kirby, Conn., 345),
140.
Strong V. State (Tex., 1893, 33 S. W.
Rep. 680), 9.
Strong V. Stevens (62 Wis. 355), 188.
Strong V. Stewart (9 Heisk., Tenn.,
137), 75, 76.
Strong V. Strong (126 111. 301), 223.
Strong V. Wilson (1 Morris, Iowa,
84), 310'.
Stroud V. Springfield (28 Tex. 649),
115.
Stroud V. Tilton (4 Abb., N. Y., 324),
60.
Stroudsburg v. Brpwn (11 Pa. Co.
Ct. R. 373), 339.
Struthers v. Drexel (133 U. S. 487;
7 S. CL 1393), 18.
Struthers v. Fuller (45 Kan. 735), 283.
Struyer v. Johnson (110 Pa. St. 31),
151.
Stuart V. New Haven (17 Neb. 211),
303.
Stuart V. People (43- Mich. 355), 6,
329.
Stubbs V. State (53 Miss. 437), 844.
Stuckslager v. Neel (133 Pa. St. 60),
60.
Sturap V. Napier (3 Yerger, Tenn.,
35), 310.
Sturdivant v. Hull (59 Me. 172), 73a.
Sture V. Sture (5 Johns. Ch. 1), 215.
Sturge V. Buchanan (2 M. & R. 90),
80.
Sturm V. Jeffers (2 C. & K. 442), 136.
Suesenbach v. Wagner (41 Minn.
108), 148.
Suiter v. Park Nat. Bank (35 Neb,
372), 347.
Sullivan v. Davis (39 Kan. 28), 83.
Sullivan v. Kelly (3 Allen, Mass.,
. 148), 334.
Sullivan v. Latimer (S. C, 1893, 17
S. E. Rep. 701), 309.
Sullivan v. O'Leary (146 Mass. 323),
340.
Sullivan v. People (123 111. 885), 239.
Sullivan v. People (114 111. 24), 354a.
Sullivan v. State (93 Pa. St. 385),
201.
TABLE OF OASES.
clxxvii
Beferences are to sections.
Sullivan v. State (6 Tex. App. 319),
131.
Summer v. Mitchell (29 Fla. 179),
135, 136.
Summer v. State (5 Tex. App. 365),
191.
Summers v. Bergner & Engi Co.
(143 Pa. St. 114), 11.
Summers v. Mosely (3 C. & M. 477),
339.
Sumnei^ v. Peeble (5 Wash. St. 471),
331.
Sumner v. Williams (5 Mass. 144), 51.
Sumpterv. State (11 Fla. 247), 324.
Sunderland, Inre(l P. &D. 198), 310.
Supples V. Lewis (-37 Conn. 56S), 35.
Stirles V. State (89 Ga. 167), 351.
Suter V. Bank (35 Neb. 373), 253.
Sutherland v. Ross (140 Pa. St. 379 ;
31 Atl. Rep. 354; 38 W. N. C.
17), 309.
Sutherland v. Stand. L. Ins. Co.
(Iowa, 1893, 54 N. W. Rep. 453),
350.
Sutor V. Wood (76 Tex. 403), 340.
Sutton V. Com. (85 Va. 138), 346.
Swain v. Comstock (18 Wis. 463),
243.
Swain v. Grangers' Union (69 Cal.
176), 217.
Swain v. Humphreys (43 111. App.
870), 169, 170.
Swales V. Grubb (136 Ind. 106), 337.
Swan V. State (36 Tex. App. 115),
333.
Swazey v. Ames (79 Me. 483), 309.
Sweeny v. Easter (1 Wall. 166), 310.
Sweet V. Parlier (32 N. J. Eq. 455),
308.
Sweet V. Stevens (7 R. I. 375), 213.
Swennerton v. Columbian (37 N. Y.
174), 238. '
Swett V. Parker (22 N. J.' Eq. 453),
333.
Swett v, Sbumway (103 Mass. 365),
317.
Sweat V. State (90 Ga. 315; 17 S. E.
Eep. 373), 378.
Sweat V. State (4 Tex. App. 617), 23.
Sweeney v. Easter (1 Wall. 166), 312.
Sweeney v. Girolo (154 Pa. St. 609),
150a.
Sweigart v. Richard (8 Barr, Pa.,
436), 140.
Swift V. Stevens (8 Conn. 431), 130.
Swift Elec. L. Co. v. Grant (90 Mich.
469; 51 N. W. Rep. 539), 375.
Swigart v. State (109 III. 373), 5.
Swigart v. Weare (37 111. , App. 358),
138.
Swink v. French (11 Lea, 80), 53.
Swisher v. Com. (3aGratt., Va., 963),
103.
Switzer v. Claflin (83 Tex. 513), SC
Sykes v. Bates (26 Iowa, 522), 303.
Sykes v. Lewis (17 Ala. 261), 73.
Sykes v. People (133 111. 33; 33 N. E.
Rep. 391), 33.
Sylvester v. Crapo (15 Pick., Mass.,
92), 70.
Sylvius V. Kosek (117 Pa. St. 67),
323.
Syuimons v. Knox (3 T. R. 65), 19.
Syracuse, The (86 Fed. Rep. 830),
376.
T.
Tabb V. Cabell (17 Gratt., Va., 160),
76.
Tabor v. Judd (63 N. H. 388), 350.
Tabor v. N. Y. E. R. Co. (58 N. Y.
Super. Ct. 579), 8.
Taft V. Com. (158 Mass. 526; 33 N.
E. Eep. 1046), 188.
Taft V. Fiske (140 Muss. 250), 376.
Talbott V. Hedges (33 N. E. Rep. 788.
Ind., 1893), 139a.
Talbott V. Hines (33 N. E. Rep. 788),
139.
Talbot V. Houser (13 Bush, Ky., 408),
135.
Talbot V. McGee (4 B. Men., Ky.,
377), 74.
Talbot V. Seaman (1 Cranch, U. S.,
13, 38), 143, 212.
clxxviii
TABLE 01' OASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Talcott V. Harris (93 N. Y. 567, 571),
80.
Taliaferro v. Goudelock(8.3Tex. 521),
79.
Taliaferro v. Lee {Ala., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 125), 367.
Talkin v. Anderson (Tex., 1892. 19
S. W. Rep. 350), 67.
Tallraadge v. Press (14 N. Y. S. 331;
60 Hun, 579), 349.
Tallman v. Early (13 N. Y. S. 805),
24.
Tallman v. Tallman (3 Misc. Rep.
465), 222.
Tarns V. Bullix (35 Pa. St. 308), 7.
Taney v. Kemp (4 H. & J. 348), 353.
Tangway v. O'Tonnell (132 Ind. 62),
151.
Tankersley v. State (31 Tex. Cr.
App. 595), 283.
Tappan v. Kimball (30 N. H. 136),
69.
Tarbell \: Farmers' Ins. Co. (44 Minn.
471), 205, 211.
Tarbox v. Shuegrue (36 Kan. 235),
50.
Tarsney v. Turner (48 Fed. Rep. 818),
347.
Tate V. Fashee (117 Ind. 322), 262.
Tate V. Penne (Mart., La., 548), 234.
Tatham v. Ramey (82 Pa. St. 130), 24.
Tatum V. Colvin (9 S. Rep. 747 ; 43
La. Ann. 755), 380.
Tavener v. Barrett (31 W. Va. 658),
13.5.
Taussig V. Glenn (51 Fed. Rep. 409),
33.
Taylor v. Alexander Bank (5 Leigh,
Va., 471), 143.
Taylor v. Arnold (17 S. W. Rep. 361,
Ky., 1892), 34.
Taylor v. Association (68 Ala. 239),
73a.
Taylor v. Barclay (3 Sim. 213), 243.
Taylor v. Beavers (4 E. D. Smith,
21.5), 218, 231.
Taylor v. Beck (3 Rand., Va., 210).
310.
Taylor v. Biggs (1 Pet. 591), 355.
Taylor v. Boardman (35 Vt. 581), 343.
Taylor V. Bi-ily (130 Ind. 484; 30
N. E. Rep. 369), 233.
Taylor v. Brydon (8 Johns. 173), 159.
Taylor v. Bunker (Mich., 1888, 36 N.
' W. Rep. 166), 308.
Taylor v. Carryl (20 How., U. S., 583),
155.
Taylor v. Chicago, etc. Co. (80 Iowa,
431), 371.
Taylor v. Com. (18 Atl. Rep. 588; 109
Pa. St. 270), 93, 231.
Taylor v. Com. (18 S. W. Rep. 853,
Ky., 1893), 346.
Taylor V. Com. (Va., 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 81), 6, 3i5.
Taylor v. Cook (8 Price, 650), 116,
139.
Taylor v. Cort (33 Neb. 30), 150a.
Taylor v. Cresswell (45 Md. 433), 231.
Taylor v. Crowninshield (5 N. Y.
Leg. Obs. 209, 233), 141.
Taylor v. Davis (82 Wis. 455; 53 N.
W. Rep. 756), 60.
Taylor v. Domiuick (36 S. C. 368),
370.
Taylor v. Dusterberg (109 Ind. 165),
308.
Taylor v. Forster (2 C. P. 195), 169.
Taylor v. Glenn (39 S. C. 293), 110,
115.
Taylor v. Hatch (12 Johns. 340), 356.
Taylor v. Judd (62 N. H. 288), 115.
Taylor v. Kilgore (33 Ala. 214), 148.
Taylor v. Lawson (3 C. & P. 543),
i 330.
Taylor v. Luther (3 Sumn., U. S.,
338), 233.
Taylor v. Peck (31 Gratt., Va., 11),
38.
Taylor v. People (12 Hun, 313), 333.
Taylor v. Railroad (48 N. H. 309), 53.
Taylor v. Roe (4 Hawks, 116), 115.
Taylor v. Sayre (34 N. J. L. 647). 205,
217.
Taylor v. State (23 Tex. App. 753; 8
S. W. Rep. 753), 319.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxix
Befereuces are to sections.
Taylor V. State (39 N. E. Eep. 415;
130 Ind. 66), 330,
Taylor v.. State (53 Miss. 84), 343.
Taylor v. State (83 Ga. 847 ; 10 S. E,
Rep. 443), 354a.
Taylor v. Taylor (26 Abb. N. C. 360),
145.
Taylor v. Taylor (79 Tex. 104), 11.
Taylor, In re (154 Pa. St. 1S3), 309.
Teacher v. Strauss (47 Miss. 358), 231.
Teachout v. People (41 N. Y. 8), 93.
Teal V. Barton (4Q Barb., N. Y., 137),
200.
Tebbetts v. Haskins (16 Me. 283), 198,
199.
Teel V. Yart (128 N. Y. 387), 159.
Tees V. Huntingdon (33 How. 11-13),
349.
Teeter v. Teeter (20 N. Y. S. 259; 65
Hun, 633), 380.
Teft V. Size (10 111. 432), 143a.
Telephone Co. v. Thompson (112 Pa.
St. 318), 73a.
Temple v. Com. (75 Va. 892), 354.
Temple v. State (15 Tex. App. 405),
242.
Temple, Ex parte (2 Yes. & B. 391),
287.
Ten Eyck v. Bunk (26 N. J. L. 513),
70.
Ten Eyck v. Witbeck (69 Hun, 450), 9.
Tennant v. Banigan (1 Dak. 432), 6.
Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Danforth
(Ala., 1893, 13 S. Rep. 51), 33.
Tennessee Riv. Transp. Co. t. Kava-
nangh (Ala., 1893, 13 S. Eep.
283), 370.
Tenney v. East Warren, etc. Co. (43
N. H. 343), 131.
Tenney v. Evans (13 N. H. 463), 176.
Tennis v. Railroad Co. (45 Kan. 50^;
25 Pao. Rep. 876), 57.
Tenny v. Simpson (37 Kan. 353), 268.
Ternes v. Dunn (7 Utah, 497), 18.
Terpening v. Holton (9 Colo. 30),
130.
Terre Haute v. Hudnnt (18 Am. &
Eng. Corp. Cas. 302), 198.
Terre Haute v. Eodel (89 Ind, 128),
83.
Terre Haute, etc. Co. v, Clem (123
Ind.' 15), 8.
Terre Haute, etc. Co. v. Pierce (95
Ind. 496), 239.
Terre Haute, etc. Co. v. Stockwell
(118 Ind. 102), 6.
Territory v. Big Knot on Head (8
Mont. 242), 50.
Territory v. Chaves (N. M., 1893, 30
Pac. Eep. OOli), 6.
Territory v. Clayton (8 Mont. 1), 350.
Territory V. Edie (N.-M., 1893,30
Pac. Rep. 581), 53.
Territory v. Godfrey (6 Dak. 46). 53.
Territory y. Hanna (5 Mont. 348),
384.
Territory v. Jones (6 Dak. 85), 343.
Territory v. McKern (Idaho, 1890, 26
Pac. Eep. 123), 91.
Territory v. Rehberg (6 Mont. 467 ;
13 Pac. Rep. 133), 339.
Terry v. Danville, etc. Co. (91 N. C.
23lB), 208.
Terry v. Eodaban (79 Ga, 278), 38.
Tetes V. Volmer (58 Hun, 1), 130.
Te-vis v. Collier (84 Tex. 038; 19 S.
W. Eep. 801), 31.
Tewksbury v. Schulenberg (41 Wis.
584), 239.
Texas Cent. E. Co. v. Burnett (80
Tex. 536; 16 S. W. Eep. 320),
192.
Texas, etc. Co. v. Barron (78 Tex.
421), 57, 373.
Texas, etc. Co. v. Hall (83 Tex. 675),
283.
Texas, etc. Co. v. Morin (66 Tex. 133),
250.
Texas, etc. Co. v. Eobertson (82 Tex.
657), 57.
Texas M. L. Ins. Co. v. Davidge (51
Tex. 244). 211.
Thalheimer v. Klapetzy (59 Hun,
619), 347.
Tharpe v. Gisburne'(2 C. & P. 31, 12
E. C. L.), 139.
clxxx
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferencea are to sections.
Thatcher v. Mori-is (11 N. Y. 437),
242.
Thatcher v. Powell (6 Wheat. 119),
332.
Thayer v. Grossman (1 Mete. 416),
310.
Thayer v. Finton (108 N. Y. 397),
220.
Thayer V. Thayer (101 Mass. Ill), 9.
Thayer v. Wellington (9 Allen, 283),
210.'
Theisen v. Dayton (83 Iowa, 74; 47
N. W. Rep. 891), 170.
Theodorsea v. Ahlgren (37 111. App.
140), 369".
Third Nat. Bank v. Owen (101 Mo.
558), 337.
Thistle V. Bufoi-d (50 Mo. 278), 83.
Thistlethwait v. Thistlethwait (13
Ind. 355), 119, 309.
Thomas v. Barnes (156 Mass. 581),
309.
Thomas v. Chicago, etc. Co. (49 Mo.
App. 110), 380.
Thomas v. Com. (Ky., 1893, 30 S. W.
Rep. 226), 18.
Thomas v. Cora. (17 S. E. Rep. 788,
Va., 1893), 240.
Thomas v. England (71 Cal. 458), 326,
241.
Thomas v. Griffen (Ind., 1890, 37 N.
E. Rep. 754), 173.
Thomas v. Hargi'ove (Wright, Ohio,
595), 71.
Thomas v. Herrall (18 Oreg. 546), 57.
Thomas v. Horloclier (1 Dall., Pa.,
14), 139.
Thomas v. Jenliins (1 N. & P. 588),
115.
Thomas v. Lewis (89 Va. 1 ; 15 S. E.
Rep. 389), 79.
Thomas v. Loose (114 Pa. St. 170),
312.
Thomas v. Miller (151 Pa. St. 483),
340, 863.
Thomas v. Musser (1 Dall. 458), 14.
Thomas v. Newton (1 M. & M. 48),
354a.
Thomas v. People (67 N. Y. 218), 10.
Thomas v. Rutledge (67 111. 212), 73a.
Thomas v. State (29 Ga. 287), 330.
Thomas v. State (84 Ga. 613 ; 10 S. E.
Rep. 1016), 89.
Thomas v. State (67 Ga. 460), 193.
Thomas v. State (103 Ind. 419;, 139,
139a, 140.
Thomas v. Stigers (5 Pa. St. 480), 238.
Thomas v. Tanner (6 T. B. Mon. 152),
148.
Thomas v. Thomas (16 Neb. 555), 233.
Thomas v. Truscott (53 Barb., N. Y.,
200), 333.
Thompson v. Bell (37 Ala. 438), 203.
Thompson v. Blanchard (2 Iowa, 44),
77.
Thompson v. Brandt (98 Cal. 155 ; 33
Pac. Rep. 890), 283.
Thompson v. Brannin (Ky., 1893, 21
S. W. Rep. 1057), 186.
Thompson v. Bullock (1 Bay, S. C,
364), 108.
Thompson v. Burhans (61 N. Y. 52),
357.
Thompson v. Com. (88 Va. 45), 383.
Thompson v. Davitt (59 Gai 473),
131.
Tliompson v. Deprez (96 Ind. 67),
198.
Thompson v. Gregor (11 Colo. 531),
350.
Thompson v. Haskell (21 111. 215),
240, 244.
Thompson v. Ish (12 S. W. Rep. 510 ;
99 Mo. 160), 178, 188.
Thompson v. Johnson (84 Tex. 548),
136.
Thompson v. Judge (54 Mich. 237),
358.
Thompson v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.
(6 N. Y. S. 7), 188.
Thompson v. Locke (65 Iowa, 429),
214.
Thompson v. Mason (4 Bradw., Ill,
452), 149.
Thompson v. McCormaok (138 III.
135; 26 N. E. Rep. 373), 151.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxxi
Befereaces are to sections.
Thompson v. Newlin (8 Ired. Eq. 32),
231.
Thompson v. Norwood (64 Hun, 636),
281a.
Thompson v. Penn. E. Co. (15 Atl.
Eep. 833; 51 N. J. L, 43), 187.
Thompson v. Poor (67 Hun, 653),
262.
Thompson v. Railroad Co. (45 Minn.
13), 362.
Thompson v. Railroad Co. (82 Oal.
497), 320.
Thompson v. Railroad Co. (91 Mich.
255), 8.
Thompson v. Ray (Ga., 1893, 18 S.
E. Rep. 59), 333.
Thompson V. Richards (14 Mich. 173),
67.
Thompson v. Richardson (96 Ala.
488; 11 S. Rep. 738), 124.
Thompson v. State (38 Ind. 89), 350.
Thompson v. State (Me., 13 Atl. Rep.
893), 140.
Thompson v. Stale (30 Tex. App.
325), 384.^
Thompson v, Stewart (3 Conn. 171),
149.
Thompson v. Stewart (93 Ind. 346),
147.
Thompson v. Thompson (93 Ala. 545 ;
8 S. Rep. 419), 371.
Thompson v. Thompson (Ky., 1893,
20 S. W. Rep. 873), 79.
Thompson v. Thompson (77 Ga. 692),
229.
Thompson v. Thompson (88 Cal. 110),
376.
Thompson v. Thompson (13 Ohio St.
356), 67.
Thompson v. Williams (30 Kan. 114),
211.
Thompson, In re (58 Hun, 608), 187.
Thompson's Case (123 Mass. 248), 386.
Thompson's Case (1 Leach, 835), 95,
260.
Thompson-Houston Electric Co. v.
Palmer (53 Minn. 174; 58 N. W,
Rep. 1137), 33.
Thomson v. Beal (48 Fed. Ren. 614),
210.
Thorndike v. Boston (1 Met. 242),
56.
Thome v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (80 Pa.
St. 15), 208.
Thornton v. Blaisdell (37 Me. 190),
302.
Thornton v. Britton (144 Pa. St. 126),
122.
Thorp V. Adams (58 Hun, 603), 285.
Thorp V. Philbin (2 N. Y. S. 733), 33.
Thorpe v. Barber (5 M., G. & S. 675),
303.
Thorson v. Peterson (9 Fed. Rep.
517), 239.
Thrall v. Lathrop (30 Vt. 307), 84.
Thrasher v. Ballard (33 W. Va. 385),
143. ,
Thrasher v. Overly (51 Ga. 91), 77,
314.
Throckmorton v. Throckmorton (15
S. E. Rep. 389), 304.
Thurf jell v. Witherbee (34 N. Y. S.
378), 281u.
Thurman v. Blankenship-Blake Co.
(79 Tex. 171), 67.
Thurman v. Cameron (24 Wend.,
N. Y., 91), 135.
Thurman v. Morrison (14 B. Mon.
298), 239.
Thurston v. Luce (61 Mich. 293),
143.
Thurston v. Masterson (9 Dana, Ky.,
385), 108.
Tibbals v. Jacobs (31 Conn. 438), 70.
Tibbetts v. Flanders (18 N. H. 284),
124..
Tibbetts v. Sternberg (66 Barb., N.
Y., 201), 339.
Tidmarsh v. Wash. P. & M. Ins. Co.
(4 Mason, 439), 250.
Tierney v. Corbett (3 Mackey, 264),
71.
Tierney v. Railroad Co. (24 Am. L.
Reg. 609), 194.
Tilden v. Barnard (43 Mich. 376X
73a.
clxxxii
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferencea are to sections.
Tilley v. Damon (11 Cush., Mass.,
247), 76.
Tillinghast v. Champlin (4 E. I. 173),
268.
Tillinghast v. Nourse (14 Ga. 641),
73a.
Tillman v. Fletcher (73 Tex. 673),
282.
Tillon V. Insurance Co. (7 Barb. 564),
129.
Tillotson V. Mitchell (111 111. 518),
83.
Tillotson V. Race (22 N. Y. 127), 124.
Tillotson V. Weber (Mich., 1893, 55
N. W: Rep. 837), 142.
Tilly V. Tilly (3 Bland Ch., MJ.,
444), 233.
Tilman v. Traver (Moody & Ryan,
141), 140.
Tilton V. Cofield (93 U. S. 166), 386.
Timberlake v. Bre\yer (59 Ala. 108),
240.
Tiraberlate v. Parish (5 Dana, 346),
215.
Timms V. Sherman (19 Md. 396), 212.
Tingly V. Cowgill (48 Mo. 301), 51,
168.
Tinkham v. Arnold (3 Me. 120), 336.
Tinkler v. Walpoli (14 East, 336),
144.
Tinkler's Case (1 East, P. C. 354), 101.
Tinnern v. Hinz (38 Hun, N. Y.,
465), 67.
Tinsley v. Dowell (Tex., 1894, 34 S.
W. Rep. 938), 320.
Tipton V. Norman (72 Mo. 380), 143a.
Tipton V. State (17 S. W. Rep. 1097;
30 Tex. App. 530), 352.
Tipton V. Warner (47 Kan. 606), 233.
Tisch V. Utz (21 Atl. Rep. 808; 143
Pa. St. 186: 28 W. N. C. 55), 67.
Tisohler v. Apple (30 Fla. 132), 370,
380.
Tisdale v. Insurance Co. (36 Iowa,
170), 233.
Tisdale v. State (17 Tex. App. 414),
334.
Tison V. Smith (8 Tex, 147), 237.
Tifcford V. Knott (3 Johns. Ch., N.
Y., 211), 136.
Titterington v. Trees (78 Tex. 567),
115.
Tittman v. Thornton (107 Mo. 500),
373.
Titus V. Ash (24 N. H. 319), 21.
Tobey v. Bristol (3 Story, 800), 275.
Tobey v. Leonard (3 Wall. 403), 304.
Tobin V. Shaw (45 Me. 331), 329.
Tobin, In re (4 N. Y. S. 59), 333.
Todd V. Dibble (6 Dem. Sur. 35), 309.
Todd V. Jones (23 Iowa, 146), 136.
Todd V. Roberts (1 Tex. Civ. App. 8),
330.
Todd V. Stafford (1 Stew., Ala;, 199),
310.
Tognini v. Kyle (17 Nev. 209), 24.
Toledo, etc. Co. v. Harnsberger (41
111. App. 494), 33.
Toledo, etc. Co. v. Milligan (3 Ind.
App. 578), 8.
Toledo, etc. R. Co. v. Dunlap (47
Mich. 456), 344.
Toledo, St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Baily
(145 111. 159; 33 N. E. Rep.
10S9), 8.
Toll arson v. Blackstock (11 S. Rep.
284, Ala., 1893), 346.
Tolman v. Emerson (4 Pick., Mass.,
160), 106.
Tombler v. Eeitz (Ind., 1893, 33 N.
E. Rep. 789), 219.
Tome V. Gerlaoh (18 N. Y. 933), 250.
Tome V. Railroad Co. (39 Md. 36, 37,
90), 38a, 139, 140.
Tomlinson v. Greenfield (31 Ark.
557), 337.
Tomlinson v. Lynch (33 Mo. 160),
166.
Tompkins v. Corinth (9 Cow., N, Y.,
255), 128.
Tompkins v. Merriman (155 Pa. St.
440), 220.
Tompkins v. Tompkins (1 Story, 547),
150.
Tompkins v. West (56 Conn. 585),
189.
TABLE 01' CASES.
clxxxiii
Keferenees are to sections.
Tonnele, etc. v. Hall (4 Comst. 145),
210.
Tooker v. Sloan (30 N. J. Eq. 94),
136.
Topmer v. Gadsden (4 Strob., S. C„
193), 60.
Toomes' Estate (54 Cal. 514), 185.
TooQiey v. Lyman (61 Hun, 623),
"229.
Toorle v. Smith (34 Kan. 37), 856.
Topeka v. Sherwood (39 Kan. 690), 8.
Toplitz V. Hedden (146 U. S. 252),
350.
Torrey v. Forbes (94 Ala. 135), 136.
Totten y. United States (93 U. S.
105), 175.
Touchard v. Crow (30 Cal. 150), 135.
Tourville v. Pierson (39 111. 446), 136.
Tow V. State (27 Tex. App. 175), 69.
Towle V. Blake (43 N. H. 93), 52, 192.
Town V. Lamphire (37 Vt. 53), 71.
Town V. Peebles (5 Wash. St. 471),
88.
Townley v. Coal Co. (59 Hun, 316),
11.
Townley v. Missouri Pac. E. Co. (89
Mo. 31), 189.
Townsond v. Bush (1 Conn. 267),
823.
Townsend v. Graves (3 Paige, 455),
10.
Townsend v. State (Miss., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 209), 354a.
Townsend v. Todd (47 Conn. 190), 83.
Townsend v. Townsend (7 Gill, 10),
231.
Tracy v. Atherton (36 Vt. 503), 326.
Tracy Peerage Case (10 C. .& F. 191),
190.
Tracy v. Iron Works (39 Mo. App.
342), 305.
Traders' Bank v. Parker (130 N. Y.
415), 233.
Trafton v. Hawes (102 Mass, 541),
208.
Trahern v. Colburn (63 Md. 104), 308.
Trammel v. Bassett (34 Ark. 499),
80.
Tram m ell v. Ramage (Ala,, 1893, 11
S. Rep. 916), 199.
Trammell v; Thurmond (17 Ark. 303),
136.
Transp. Line v. Hope (95 U. S. 207),
198.
Trapnall v. Brown (19 Ark. 48), 246.
Traser v. Haggerty (86 Mich. 531),
312.
Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Mosley (8
W.all. 408), 56.
Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Sheppard (85
Ga. 751), 56, 333.
Travers v. Jennings (S. C, 1893, 17
S. E. Rep. 849), 360.
Traverse v. Satterlee (67 Hun, 653;
23 N. Y. S. 118), 126.
Travis v. Brown (43 Pa. St. 12), 141,
185.
Travis v. Continental Ins. Co. (47
. Mo. App. 472), 369.
Travis v. Pierson (43 111. App. 479), 8.
Trauerman v. Lippincott (39 Mo.
App. 478), 151.
Tread way v. Tread way (45 111. App.
478), 50.
Trebilcox v. McAlpine(62 Hun, 317),
159.
Tredwell v. Inslee (130 N. Y. 458),
226.
Trent v. Fletcher (100 Ind. 105), 205.
Trenwith v. Smallwood (111 N. C.
132), 134.
Treon v. Brown (14 Ohio. 482), 310.
Trese v. State (2 S. Rep. 390), 341.
Trevelyan, Adm'r, v. Lofft (83 Va, ,
141), 283.
Trevor v. Wood (36 N. Y. 307), 33.
Trileavan v. Dixon (119 111. 551), 168.
Trimble v. Edwards (84 Tex. 497), 30.
Trimble v. Mims (Ga., 1894, 18 S. E.
Rep. 363), 309.
Trimbo v. Trimbo (47 Minn. 389),
350.
Trinity v. Lane (79 Tex. 643), 11.
Trlplett V. Gills (7 J. J. Marsh. 433),
142.
Triplet* v, Goff (83 Va. 784), 69.
clxxxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
Keferenoes are to sections.
Tripp V. Cook (26 Wend. 152), 386. I
Troeder v. Hyams (27 N. E. Rep. |
775), 138.
Trotter v. Mills (6 Wend. 512), 146.
Truby v. Seybert (12 Pa. St. 101), 74.
Truesdale v. Hoyle (39 111. App. 532),
7, 8, 247, 852.
Truitt's Estate (10 Phila., Pa., 16),
139a.
Trujillo V. Territory (N. Max., 1893,
30 Pac. Rep. 8T0), 330.
Trulick v. Peeples (1 Ga. 3), 185.
Trull V. Fisher (28 Me. 548), 262.
Trunkey v. Hedstrom (33 111. App.
397), 124.
Trustee, Ex parte (9 Morrell's Bank.
Cas. 116), 170.
Trustees v. Bledsoe (5 Ind., 133), 73a.
Trustees v. McKechnie (90 N. Y.
618), 136.
Trustees v. Saunders (Wig., 1898, 54
N. W. Rep. 1094), 208.
Trustees v. Southard (31 111. App.
359), 319.
Trustees v. Stetson (5 Pick., Mass.,
506), 205.
Tuck V. Olds (29 Fed. Rep. 883), 267.
Tucker v. Kellogg (8 Utah, 11; 28
Pac. Rep. 870), 139, 140.
Tucker v. Page (69 111. 179), 314.
Tucker v. Peasley (36 N. H. 157), 7.
Tucker v. People (117 111. 91), 142.
Tucker v. Seamen's Aid Society (7
Mete, Mass., 188), 221.
Tucker v. Smith (68 Tex. 473; 3 S.
W. Rep. 071), 110, 113.
Tucker v. So. Kingston (5 R. I. 558),
176.
Tucker v. State (11 Md. 322), 244.
Tucker v. Tucker (113 Ind. 272; 13
N. E. Rep. 710), 214.
Tuckwood V. Hawthorne (30 N. W.
Rep. 705 ; 07 Wis. 326), 35.
Tuley V. Barton (79 Va. 387), 210.
Tullis V. State (30 Ohio St. 200), 323.
TuUy V. Alexander (11 La. Ann. 628),
166.
Tunscall v. Cobb (109 N. C. 816), 18.
Tuomey v. O'Reilly (33 N. Y. S. 930;
3 Misc. Rep. 303), 367, 370.
Turnbull v. Lanbagh (6 Kulp, Pa.,
136), 361.
Turnbull v. Payson (95 U. S. 218),
148.
Turnbull v. Richardson (69 Mich.
400; 4 S. Rep. 618), 35, 190.
Turner v. Boston, etc. Co. (33 N. B.
Rep. 520; 158 Mass. 361), 38a.
Turner v. Coffin (13 Allen, 401), 84.
Turner v. Connelly (105 N. C. 72),
136.
Turner v. Cook (36 Ind. 139), 276.
Turner v. Fish (28 Miss. 306), 248.
Turner V. Hahr(114 Mo. 335; 21 S.
W. Rep. 737), 198.
Turner v. Hellard (30 Ch. D. 390),
1.50.
Turner v. Holden (109 N. C. 183),
150a.
Turner v. Jenkins (1 H. & J., Md.,
161), 80.
Turner v. Lord (93 Mo. 113), 231.
Turner t. Patten (49 Ala. 406), 238.
Turner v. Sav. Inst. (76 Me. 537),
223.
Turner V. State (50 Miss. 351, 354),
71, 166, 217.
Turner v. State (89 Tenn. 547), 39.
Turner v. State (Ala., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 54), 19, 33.
Turner v. Weddington (3 Wash. 126),
148.
Turnipseed v. Hawkins (1 McCord,
373), 138, 139.
Turpin v. State (55 Md. 468, 477),
166, 167.
Tuttle V. Rainey (98 N. 0. 513), 139,
339.
Tutwiler v. Munford (63 Ala. 124),
208.
Tuxbury v. French (41 Mich. 7),
220.
Twiss V. Baldwin (9 Conn. 293), 20.
Tworably v. Leach (11 Cush., Mass.,
405), 193.
Tyler v. Flanders (57 N. H. 618), 53.
TABLE OF CASES,
clxxxv
References are to sections.
Tyler v. Hall (106 Mo. 813), 11, 82,
169.
Tyler v. Todd (36 Conn. 218), 140.
Tyler v. Tyler (136 111. 535), 171.
Tyres v. Kennedy (126 Ind. 523), 69.
u.
Udderzook v. Com. (76 Pa. St. 340),
38a.
Uhe V. Chicago M. etc. Co. (S. D.,
1893, 54 N. W. Rep. 601), 341.
Ulraer v. State (14 Ind. 52), 334.
Umbarger v. Chaboya (49 Cal. 535),
233.
Underwood v. Hart (33 Vt. 130), 74,
Underwood v. State (73 Ala. 220), 23.
Underwood v. Wing (19 Beav. 459),
233.
Unger v. Mooney (63 Cal. 586), 226.
Union v. Plainfield (39 Conn. 563),
53.
Union Bldg. Ass'n v. Insurance Co.
(83 Iowa, 647), 373.
Union Ins. Co. v. Smith (8 S. Ct.,
U. S., 534), 198.
Union Miit. Life Ins. Co. v. Mowry
(96 U. S. 547-48), 84.
Union M. Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson (13
Wall. 231), 205.
Union Nat. Bank v. Int. Bank (33
III. App. 652), 205.
Union Pac. Ey. Co. v. Chicago, etc.
Co. (51 Fed. Eep. 309), 375.
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v, Fray (35 Kan.
700), 73o.
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. O'Brien (46
Fed. Rep. 538), 333.
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Reese (56 Fed.
Eep. 288), 350, 367.
Union Stock Yards v. Gillespie (137
U. S. 411). 18.
Union Stock Yards Co. v. Cattle Co.
(59 Fed. Rep. 49), 205.
United Breth. M. A. I. Co. v. O'Hara
(120 Pa. St. 256), 194.
United States v. Amador (N. M„
1892, 37 Pac. Rep. 388), 35.
United States v. American (1 Wool w.
317), 238.
United States v. Angell(ll Fed. Rep.
41, 54), 57, 341, 346.
United States v. Arredondo (6 Wall.
691), 342.
United States v. Atherton (103 U. S.
375), 386.
United States v. Babcock (3 Dill.,
U. S., 568), 288.
United States v. Bailey (9 Pet., U. S.,
238), 356.
United States v. Barrells (8 Blatchf.
475), 341.
United States v. Bassett (5 Utah,
131; 13 Pac. Rep. 237), 167.
United States v. Beebe (17 Fed. Rep.
36), 236.
United States v. Beebe (3 Dak. 293),
337.
United States v. Bell (111 U. S. 477),
141.
United States v. Benner (1 Baldw.
338), 141.
United States v. Bennett (17 Blatchf.,
U. S., 357), 384.
United States v. Boese (46 Fed. Eep.
917), 93.
United States v. Bott (11 Blatchf.
346), 137.
United States t. Brown (40 Fed. Eep.
457), 346.
United States v. Button (2 Mason,
464), 33.
United States v. Castro (24 How.
346), 106.
United States v. Chapman (4 Am.
Law, J. 440), 90.
United States v. Clapboards (4 Cliff.
303), 9.
United States v. Council (54 Fed.
Eep. 994), 76.
United States v. Cross (20 D. C. 365),
141, 340.
United States v. Cushraan (2 Sumn.
426), 154.
United States y. Cutler (19 Pac. Eep.
145; 5 Utah, 608), 166.
clxxxyi
TABLE OF CASES.
United States v. Cuttingham (3
Blatohf. 470), 127.
United States v. Ducournac (54 Fed.
Rep. 138), 241.
United States v. Duff (19 Blatohf.
10), 126.
United States v. Durling (4 Biss. 509),
277.
United States v. Edme (9 S. & E.,
Pa., 147), 286.
United States v. Ferguson (54 Fed.
Rep. 28), 304.
United States v. Ford (33 Fed. Rep.
861), 350, 3546.
United States v. Ford (99 U. S. 595),
323.
United States v. Gardner (42 Fed.
Rep. 832), 88.
United States v. Gates (6 Fed. Rep.
866), 322.
United States v. Gibert (2 Sumn. 16),
97, 144, 332.
United States v. Gooding (13 Wheat.
469), 97.
United States v. Green (6 Mackey,
562), 233.
United States v. Guiteau (3 Crim. L.
Mag. 347), 197.
United States v. Hall (7 Macliey, 14),
140.
United States v. Hall (D. O., 53 Fed.
Rep. 353), 320.
United States v. Hall (44 Fed. Rep.
864), 384.
United States v. Hartwell (3 Cliff. C.
C. 22), 69.
United States v. Heath (20 D. C.
272). 101, 234.
United States v. Heath (19 Wash.
Law R. 818), 101, 103.
United States v. Hinz (35 Fed. Rep.
723), 333, 324.
United States v. Howe (12 Cent. L.
J. 193), 191.
United States v. Howell (56 Fed.
Rep. 21), 324.
United States v. Hunter (1 Cranch,
446), 806, 333.
Eeferenoes are to seotlona.
United States v. Johns (4 Dall. 42,
415), 143.
United States v, Johnson (3 Sawy.,
U. S., 482), 239.
United States v. Johnson (1 Cranch,
U. S., .371), 139.
United States v. Jones (10 Fed. Rep.
469), 139a.
United States v. Jones (32 Fed. Rep.
569), 166.
United States v. Kee (39 Fed. Rep.
606), 381.
United States v. Keefer (59 Ind.
263), 237.
United States v. Kindred (4 Hughes,
U. S,, 493), 281.
United States v. Kirkwood (5 Utah,
13.3), 90.
United States v. Lancaster (44 Fed.
Rep. 896), 326.
United States v. Larned (4 Cranch,
312), 139a.
United States v. Le Baron (40 Wall.
642), 23.
United States v. Libby (1 W. & M.
221), 243.
United States v. Linn (1 How. 101),
129.
United States v. Lucero (1 N. M.
422). 238.
United States v. Marcus (53 Fed. Rep.
784), 96.
United States v. McKee (3 Dill. C. C.
546), 69.
United States v. McKenzie (35 Fed.
Rep. 826), 5.
United States v. McLaughlin (24 Fed.
Rep. 823), 306.
United States v. McRae (L. R. 3 Ch.
86), 149.
United States v. Meagher (37 Fed.
Rep. 875), 6.
United States v. Mingo (3 Curt. C. C.
1), 249.
United States v. Moses (4 Wash. C.
C. 726), 176.
United States v. Mullaney (83 Fed.
Rep. 730). 346.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxxvii
Beferences are to sections.
United States v. Neal (1 Gall. 887),
23. ,
United States v. Newton (53 Fed.
Rep. 275), 6.
United States v. Noelke (17 Blatchf.
570), 56, 57.
United States v. Nott (1 McLean,
499), 89.
United States v. Palmer (3 Wheat.
610), 243.
United States v. Payne (2 McCrary,
C. C. 289), 242.
United States v. Peck (102 U. S. 64),
222.
United States v. Pendergast (33 Fed.
Rep. 198), 190.
United States v. Perot (8 Otto, 428),
243.
United States v. Porter (3 Day, 283,
286), 23.
United States v. Rapp (30 Fed Rep.
822), 127.
United States v, Reid (2 Blatchf.
435), 176.
United States v. Reynes (9 How.,
U. S., 127), 242.
United States v. Ross (93 U. S. 281),
226.
United States v. Six Lots of Ground
(1 Woods, C. C. 234), 175.
United States v. Slenker (33 Fed.
Rep. 694), 127.
United States v. Smith (47 Fed. Rep.
501), 354a.
United States v. Spalding (2 Mason,
478), 128.
United States v. Sutton (31 How.
170, 175), 126.
United States v. Taylor (35 Fed. Rep.
484), 354.
United States v. Tesohmaker (33
How. 393), 244.
United States v. Thomas (47 Fed.
Rep. 807), 281.
United States v. Thompson (98 U. S.
489), 226.
Uoited States v. Tilden (10 Ben. 566,
570, 581), 288.
u
United States v. Watkins (3 Cranch,
442), 347.
United States v. Whittier (5 Dill., 39,
41), 127.
United States v. Williams (4 Biss.
303), 237.
United States v. Williams (6 Mont,
379), 240.
United States v. Wilson (7 Pet. , U. S. ,
, 150), 820.
United States v. Woods (14 Pet. 440),
884.
United States v. Workman (54 Fed.
Rep. 994),' 304.
United States v. Tbanez (53 Fed.
Rep. 536), 3, 226, 288, 324.
United States Exp. Co. v. Jenkins
(73 Wis. 471), 134.
Univ. Fash. Co., v. Skinner (64 Hun,
293), 208.
Upcher v. Oberlender (31 Pac. Rep.
1080; 50 Kan. 315), 199.
Upchurch v. Upchurch (16 B. Mon.
102), 131.
Updyke v. Weed (18 Abb. Pr. 223),
253.
Upham V. Draper (157 Mass. 392; 33
N. E. Rep. 24), 24.
Upington v. Keenan (67 Hun, 648),
376.
Upinton v. Carrington (69 Hun, 320),
234.
Upton V. Catlin (17 Colo. 546), 140.
Urias v. Penn. R. R. Co. (153 Pa. St.
326), 880. .
Urnston v. State (73 Ind. 175), '240.
Dtley V. Donaldson (94 U. S. 39), '33.
Vahle V. Brackenseick (111., 1893, 34
N. E. Rep. 534), 244.
Vail V. Judson (4 E. D. Smith, N. Y.,
165), 73a.
Vail V. Lewis (4 Johns; 450), 18.
Vail V. Rice (5 N. Y. 155), 216.
Vail V. Smith (4 Cow. 71), 146. |
Vail V. Strong (10 Vt. 457), 79.
clxxxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Valensin v. Valensin (14 Pac. Rep.
397; 73 Cal. 106), 172.
Valentine v. Piper (33 Pick. 85), 239.
Vallaint v. Dodemead (3 Atk. 534),
169.
Valle V. Picton (91 Mo. 207; 3 S. W.
Rep, 860), 381.
Van Bokkelen v. Berdell (130 N. Y.
141), 35.
Van Camp v. Hartman (126 Ind.
177), 316.
Vance v. Fare (24 Cal. 414), 210.
Vance v. Wood (82 Oreg. 77), 205.
Vanderburg v. Campbell (64 Miss.
89), 378.
Vanderlin v. Hovis (153 Pa. St. 11),
314.
Van Deusen y. Newcomer (40 Mich.
120), 193.
Vandeusen v. Young (26 N. Y. 9), 199.
Vandevelde v. Snellen (1 Keb. 320),
387.
Vandoren v. Baily (48 Minn. 305),
73a.
Vdndoren v. Jeliffe (20 N. Y. S. 636),
383.
Vandoren v. Liebman (11 N. Y. S.
769), 230.
Vandyck v. Van Buren (1 Caines,
84), 226.
Van Epps v. Van Epps (6 Barb. 320),
231.
Van Etten v. Newton (8 N. Y. S.
478), 211.
Van Evera v. Davis (51 Iowa, 637),
205.
Van Fleet v. Sledge (45 Fed. Rep.
743), 205, 217.
Van Hoover v. Berghoff (90 Mo. 487),
193.
Van Horn V. Van Horn (N. J., 1892,
33 Atl. Rep. 1079), 205, 250.
Van Huss v. Rambolt (42 Tenn. 139),
197.
Van Kamen v. Roes (65 Hun, 635),
369.
Van Keuren V. Parmelee (3 Comst.,
N. Y., 523), 69.
Van Kleck v. McClabe (87 Mich. 599>,
67.
Vann v. State (83 Ga. 44), 334.
Vannatta v. Duffy (Ind., 1893, 30 N.
E. Rep. 807), 367
Vanness v. Bank (13 Pet. 21), 136.
Van Peet v. MoGraw (4 N. Y, 110),
234.
Vanquelin v. Bovard (9 L. T., N. S.,
582), 145, 158.
Van Sickle v. Gibson (40 Mich. 167^
53.
Van Storch v. Grififen (71 Pa. St.
240), 178.
Van Swarton v. Com. (24 Pa. St.
131), 243.
Vanway v. Klein (123 Ind. 416), 68.
Vanzant v. Jones (3 Dana, Ky., 464),
253.
Vary v. Godfrey (6 Cow. 587), 356.
Vaugh V. McElroy (82 Ga. 687), 13a
Vaughan v. Warnell (26 Tex. 117),
114.
Vaughn v. Com. (86 Ky. 431 ; 6 S.
W. Rep. 153), 101.
Vaughn v. Hixon (50 Kan. 773), 84.
Vaughn v. Strong (4 N. Y. S. 689),
60.
Vaughran v. State (07 Ark. 1 ; 20 S.
W. Rep. 588), 5.
Vaux Peerage (5 C. &F. 538), 145.
Vawter V. Hulse (113 Mo. 633), 360.
Veazey v. Brigman (93 Ala. 548),
150a.
Vellum V. Demerle (65 Hun, 543), 83.
Verdier v. Verdier (8 Rich., S. C,
135), 138.
Vernon v. Kirk (30 Pa. St. 218), 138.
Vernon, etc. Co. v. Johnson (108
Ind. 128), 276.
Vernon, The (36 Fed. Rep. 113), 276;
Verran v. Baird (150 Mass. 150), 39.
Vette V. Leonori (43 Mo. App. 217),
18.
Vicknair v. Trosher (La., 1893, 12 &
Rep. 486), 308.
Vickroy v. Skelly (14 S. & E., Pa.,
372), 139.
TABLE OF OASES.
clxxxix
Eeferenoes are to seotious.
Vicksbnrg & Meridian E. Co. v.
O'Brien (119 U. S. 99, 105-6), 58.
Viel V. Cowles (45 Hun, 307), 178,
"Viele V. Insurance Co. (26 Iowa, 10),
. 253.
Viele V. Judson (82 N. Y. 32-89), 83.
Vifquain v. Finch (15 Neb. 505),
249.
Village V. Eecord (46 Hun, 448), 178.
Vilmar v, Schail (61 N. Y. 564), 362.
Vinal V. Burrill (16 Pick. 401, 407),
126.
Vinton v. Peclc (14 Mich. 287), 140,
141.
Virginia City v. Manufactui-ing Co.
(2 Nev. 86), 242.
Vogel V. Osborne (21 Minn. 267), 76.
Vogler V. Spaugh (4 Biss., U. S., 288),
205.
Vogt V. Com. (17 S. W. Eep. 213: 92
Ky. 68), 283.
Voisin V. Insurance Co. (67 Hun,
365), 74.
Volant V. Soyer (13 Q. B. 231), 173.
Volljenan v. Drum (154 Pa. St. 616),
208.
Von Eosenberg v. Haynes (Tex., 1892,
20 S. W. Rep. 143), 107.
Von Staubenzee v. Monli (32 L. J.
Prob. 21), 210.
VonTrothav. Bamberger (15 Colo. 1),
213.
Voorhis, In re (135 N. Y. 765), 269.
Vorebeck v. Roe (50 Barb. 305),
262. ,
Vosburg V. Thayer (12 Johns. 261),
60.
Vosburgh- v. Putney (80 Wis. 523),
188.
Vose V. Morton (4 Cush., Mass., 27),
, . 151.
Voss V. King (33 W. Va. 236), 309.
Vowels V. Com. (83 Ky. 193), 369.
Vowles V. Miller (3 Taunt. 137), 20.
Vreeland v. Vreeland (48 N. J. Eq.
56), S29.
Vreeland v. Williams (3S N. J. Eq.
, .754),, 222. .
w.
Wabash, etc. Co. v. Ferris (Ind.,
1893, 33 N. E. Eep. 112), 354.
Wabash, etc. Co. v. McDougal (113
111. 603), 316.
Wabash W. E. Co. v. Friedman (41
111. App. 270), 192.
Wachterhaus v. Smith (10 N. Y. S.
535), 316.
Wadd V. Hazleton (62 Hun, 603),
169, 246.
Waddams v. Humphreys (22 111.
661), 166.
Wade V. Brighton (3 V. & B. 29), 139.
Wade V. Ordway (57 Tenn. 229), 343.
Wade V. Powell (31 Ga. 1), 77.
Wade V. Scott (7 Mo. 509), 253.
Wade V. State (10 S. Eep. 233), 23.
Wade V. State (7 Baxt., Tenn., 80),
124.
Wadsworth v. Aloott (6 N. Y. 64),
211.
Wagner v. Olson (N. D., 1893, 54 N.
W. Eep. 386), 319.
Wagner's Case (61 Me. 178), 344.
Wagoner v. Rupply (60 Tex. 700), 50,
140.
Wagonseller v. Brown (7 Pa. Co. Ct.
Eep. 663), 337.
Wahed v. Stein (59 Hun, 633), 126.
Waitv. Fairbanks (Brayton, Vt., 77),
216.
Waite V. Coaracy (45 Minn. 159), 233,
333.
Waite V. State (13 Tox. App. 169),
193.
Wakefield v. Day (41 Minn. 344), 130.
Walden v. Bolton (55 Mo. 405), 74.
Walden v. Sherbourne (15 Johns.
409), 69.
Waldon v. Purvis (73 Cal. 518), 70.
Waldron v. Tultle (4 N. H. 371), 53,
108.
Waldron v: Waldron (45 Mich. 350),
221.
Walk V. Bank of Circle ville (15 Ohio,
288, 289), 56.
cxc
TABLE OF OASES.
Heferenoes are to sections.
Walker v. Allen (73 Ala. 456), 239.
Walker v. Bernstein (43 111. AppI
568), 199.
Walker v. Camp (63 Iowa, 627), 214.
Walker v. Cole (Tex., 1894, 24 S. W.
Rep. 76), 68. ,
Walker v. Collins (50 Fed. Rep. 73),
199.
Walker v. Cook (33 111. App. 561),
277.
Walker v. Dunspaugh (20 N. Y. 170),
73a, 333.
Walker v. Fields (28 Ga. 237), 199,
Walker v. Forbes (25 Ala. 139), 73,
114.
Walker V, Herring (21 Gratt., Va.,
678), 268-.
Walker v. Leslie (Ky., 1891, 14 S. W.
Rep. 682), 15.3.
Walker v. Moors (123 Mass. 501),
114.
Walker V. People (88 N. Y. 81), 249.
Walker v. State (52 Ala. 192), 103.
Walker v. State (102 lud. 503), 10.
Walker V. State (91 Ala. 76; 10 S.
Rep. 401), 23, 24.
Walker v. State (96 Ala. 53 ; 12 S.
Rep. 83), 817.
Walker v. State (7 Tex. App. 245),
89, '202.
Walker v. State (14 Tex. App. 609),
140.
Walker v. Taylor (43 Vt. 612), 308.
Walker v. Walker (3 Atk. 98), 383.
Walker v. Walker (3 Ga. 303), 305.
Walker v. Westfield (39 Vt. 246), 8.
Walker v. Wilmington, etc. Co. (26
S. C. 80), 214.
Walker v. Wingfleld (18 Ver. 443),
142.
Walkoff V. Tefft (12 N. Y. S. 464),
354.
Walkup V. Com. (Ky., 1893, SOS. W.
Rep. 231), 283.
Walkup V. Pratt (5 Harr. & J. 51),
53, 67.
Wallace, In re (25 Atl. Rep. 260; 49
N. J. Eq. 539), 35, 114.
Wallace v. Bryne (17 La. Ann. 8),
356.
Wallace v. Harmstead (44 Pa. St.
492), 128.
Wallace v. Kennedy (47 N. J. L.
246), 8.
Wallace V. Rappleyea (103 111. 329),
263.
Wallace v. State (90 Ga. 117; 15 S.
E. Rep. 700), 101.
Wallace y. Story (139 Mass. 115), 50.
Wallace v. Straus (113 N. Y. 238),
309.
Wallace v. Uni. Pres. Ch. (HI Pa.
St. 164), 335.
Waller, In re (49 Fed. Rep. 271), 276.
Wallers v. People (32 N. Y. 147), 249.
Wallich V. Morgan (39 Mo. App.
469), 24.
Wallis V. Randell (81 N. Y. 164), 69.
Walradt v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (136
N. Y. 375), 200.
Walrath v. Whitlekind (26 Kan. 483),
309.
Walsh V. iEtna L. Ins. Co. (30 Iowa,
133), 200.
Walsh V. Anderson (135 Mass. 65),
150a.
Walsh V. Dart (12 Wis. 635), 243.
Walsh V. People (88 N. Y. 458),
345.
Walsh V. Rogers (13 How. 286, 287),
361.
Walsh V. Sayre (52 How. Pr. 384),
203.
Walsh V. Washington, etc. Co. (33
N. Y. 437), 198.
Walter v. Bolman (8 Watts, 544), 60.
Walter v. Cronly (14 Wend., N. Y.,
63), 333.
Walter v. Fairchild (4 N. Y. S. 559),
172.
Walter V. Moore (90 N. C. 41), 150a.
Walters v. Senf (Mo., 1893, 33 S. W.
Eep. 311), 316.
Walton V. Campbell (35 Neb. 173;
53N. W. Rep. 883), 128.
Walton V. Jones (7 Utah, 463), 34, 27.
TABLK OF CASES.
CXCl
Beferences are to sections.
Walton V. Kansas, etc. Co, (49 Mo.
App. 630), 380.
Walton V. Shelley (1 T. R. 296), 310.
Walton V. State (79 Ga. 46; 5 S. E.
Rep. 205), 101.
Ward V. Bartholomew (6 Piok. 409),
225.
Ward V. Busack (46 Wis. 407), 35.
Ward V. Clay (83 Cal. 502), 371.
Ward V. Dougherty (75 Cal. 340),
229.
Ward T. Gould (5 Pick. 29), 77.
Ward V. Hayden (3 Esp. 552), 803.
Ward V. Henry (19 Wis, 76), 244.
Ward V. Howell (5 H. & J. 60), 69.
Ward V. Kilpatrick (85 N. Y. 413),
198.
Ward V. Lewis (4 Pick. 518), 239.
Ward V. Patton (75 Ala. 207), 24.
Ward V. Sharp (15 Vt. 115), 353.
Ward V. State (33 Ala. 16), 237.
Ward y. Ward (37 Mich. 353), 50, 79.
Ware v. Smith (156 Mass. 186; SON.
E. Rep. 869), 83.
Warfield v. Booth (33 Md. 63), 830,
233.
Waring v. Suydani (4 Edw., N. Y.,
862), 305. I
Waring v. United States (7 Ct. CI.
501), 320. j
Warlick v. White (76 N, C. 175), 345.
Warner v. Bait. & O. R. R. (31 Ohio
St. 265), 138. , I
Warner v. Hare (154 Pa. St. 548), 380.
Warner v. Warner's Estate (37 Vt.
362), 63, 139.
Warrall v. Munn (5 N. Y. 229), 368.
Warren v. Com, (37 Pa. St, 45), 10.
Warren v. Gabriel (51 Ala. 235), 347.
Warren v. Jacksonville (15 111. 236),
236.
Warren v. Miller (38 Me. 108), 205.
Warren v. Press, Pub. Co. (132 N. Y.
181), 167.
Warren v. Spencer Water Co, (143
Mass. 155), 31,
Warren v. State (31 Tex. Cr, App.
573), 10.
Warren Co, v. State (15 Ind. 250),
140.
Warrick v, Hull (103 III. 280), 309.
Warrick v. Queen's College (40 L, J.
Ch. 785), 112.
Warten v. Strane (83 Ala. 311), 310.
Warwick v, Bruce (3 M. & S. 205),
263.
Washburn v. Cuddely (8 Gray, 430),
145.
Washburn v. Railway Co, (59 Wis,
364, 368), 344,
Washburn v. Ramsdell (17 Vt. 299),
70.
Washington v. Cole (6 Ala, 212),
190,
Washington v. Finley (5 Eng., Ark.,
423), 243,
Washington L, Insurance Co, v,
Scheible (1 W, N. C. 369), 38,
Wasson v. Bank (107 Ind. 206), 257,
Wasson v. Connor (54 Mass. 352), 135.
Waterman v. Chicago, etc. Co. (53
N. W, Rep, 247; 82 Wis, 613),
250, 874.
Waterman v. Johnson (13 Pick. 361),
330,
Waterman v. Peet (11 111. 648), 73a.
Waters v. State (30 Tex. App, 384),
383,
Watertown v, Cowen (4 Paige, 510),
73,
Watkins v. Bowers (119 Mass, 383),
313.
Watkins v, Holman (16 Peters, 357),
141,
Watkins v. Howeth (1 Tex. Civ. App.
377), 83.
Watkins v. Paine (57 Ga. 50), 30.
Watkins v. State (89 Ala. 83), 39.
Watkins v. Turner (34 Ark. 663), 167.
Watrous v. Cunningham (11 Pac.
Rep. 811; 71 Cal. 30), 60, 337.
Watson V. Blymer Manufg. Co. (8
S, W, Rep, 353; 66 Tex. 558), 283.
Watson V. Brewster (1 Barr, 381), 53.
Watson V. Com, (95 Pa, St. 418), 6,
324,
CXCll
TABLE OF CASES.
Heferences are to sections.
Watson V. Lemon (9 Colo. 200), 76.
Watson V. McAllister (7 Mart. 368),
139a.
Watson V. Miller (83 Tex. 279), 205,
336.
Watson V. Moore (1 C. & Kir. 636), 80.
Watson V. Pinckney (18 N. Y. S.
790), 346.
Watson V. Race (46 Mo. App. 546),
863.
Watson V. Sherman (84 III. 263), 268.
Watson V. Tyndall (34 Ga. 494), 233.
Watt V. People (136 111. 9; 18 N. E,
Rep. 340), 7, 346.
Watt V. Womaok (7 Ga. 356), 131.
Watts V. Bruce (10 B. & C. 446), 263.
Watts V. Kilburn (7 Ga. 356), 131.
Watts V. Territory (1 Wash. Ter.
409), 176.
Watzel y. State (38 Tex. App. 533),
33.
Way V. Butterworth (106 Mass. 75),
176.
Wayne v. Blun (Ga., 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 388), 369.
Wead V. Railroad Co. (64 Vt. 52),
220.
Weall V. King (12 East, 452), 18.
Weatherford v. State (31 Tex. Crim.
Rep. 530), 176.
Weathersley v. Weathersley (40 Miss.
462), 223.
Weatherwax v. Payne (3 Mich. 555),
356.
Weaver v. Emigrant, etc. Co. (17
Abb. N. C. 83), 246.
Weaver v. McElbranan (13 Mo. 89),
, 337.
Weaver v. People (132 III. 536), 6.
Weaver v. Shiply (137 Ind. 536), 7,
30.
Weaver's Estate (9 Pa. Co. Ct. R.
516), 170, 174.
Webb V. Alexander (7 Wend. 381,
386), 147.
Webb V. Gonzales (69 Tex. 455 ; 6 S.
W. Rep. 781), 135.
Webb V. Page (1 Carr. & K. 33), 191.
Webbv. Rice (6 Hill, N. Y., 319),
333.
Webb V. State (39 Ohio St. 351), 332.
Webb V. Taylor (1 D. & L. 676), 375.
Webb V. Webb (29 Ala. 606), 206. '
Webb, In re (I. R. 5 Eq. 235), 233.
Webber v. Jackson (79 Mich. 175 ; 44
N. W. Rep. 591), 347.
Weber v. Kingsland (8 Bosw. 415),
313.
Weber v. Maokey (31 111. App. 369),
151.
Weber Wagon Co. v. Kehl (139 III.
644; 39 N. E. Rep. 714), 185, 333.
Webster v. Clark (30 Ark. 245), 73a.
Webster v. Daniel (47 Ark. 131), 147.
Webster v. Frovcler (50 N. W. Rep.
1074; 89 Mich. 303), 11.
Webster v. Hodgkins (25 N. H. 138),
209.'
Webster v. Mann (56 Tex. 119), 145.
Webster v. Stearns (44 N. ■ H. 498),
67.
Webster v. Webster (1 F. & F. 401),
57.
Weed V. Kellogg (6 McLean, U. S.,
44), 68, 73.
Weed V. Life Ins. Co. (70 N. Y. 561),
350.
Weeks v. Inhabitants (156 Mass. 389),
73a.
Weeks v. Sparks (1 M. & S. 686, 690),
110, 115.
Wegner v. State (38 Tex. App. 419),
138.
Wehle V. Spelman (1 Hun, N. Y.,
1), 77.
Weinberg v. Kram (17 N. Y. &
535), 8.
Weinberg v. Somps (Cal., 1893, 33
Pac. Rep. 341), 377.
Weineoke v. State (34 Neb. 14; 51
N. W. Rep. 307), 33.
Weitman v. Jhiot (64 Ga. 11), 106.
Welborn v. Atl. R. Co. (Ga., 1893, 17
S. E. Rep. 673), 373.
Welch v. Barrett (15 Mass. 380), 58.
Welch V. County (39 W. Va. 63), 239.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXCIU
Beferences are to sections.
Welch V. Edtniston (46 Mo. App.
283), 220.
Welch V. Horton (73 Iowa, 250),
205.
Welch V. Miller (33 111. App. 110),
185.
Welch V. Palmer (85 Mich. 310), 79.
Welch V. Sackett (13 Wis. 257), 325.
Welcome v. Batchelder (23 Me. 85),
313.
Welcome v. Mitchpll fSl Wis. 566; 51
N. W. Eep. 1080), 339.
Weld V. Brobks (25 N. E. Rep. 719),
58.
Welde V. Welde (3 Lee, 580), 202.
Welds V. Nichols (17 Pick. 538), 7.
Welke V. Welke (63 Hun, 625), 351.
Welland Canal v. Hathaway (8
Wend. 480), 38, 80.
Wellington v. Boston E. R. Co. (158
Mass. 185 ; 33 N. E. Rep. 393), 83.
Wellington v. Howard (Ind., 1893,
31 N. B. Rep. 583), 18.
Wells V. Evans (20 Wend., N. Y.,
251), 268.
Wells V. Jackson, etc. Co. (48 N. H.
491), 333, 341.
Wells V. Leveridge (20 Oreg. 168),
sao.
Wells V. Railroad Co. (110 Mo. 286),
240.
Wells V. Tucker (3 Binn. 366), 168.
Wells V. Yarborough (84 Tex. 660),
380.
Welsh V. Joy (13 Pick. 477), 50a.
Welsh V. State (96 Ala. 93; 11 S.
Rep. 450), 6, 95.
Wempler v. State (28 Tex. App. 353),
115.
Wendlinger v. Smith (75 Va. 309),
313.
Wendt V. Chicago, etc. Co. (S. D.,
1894, 54 N. W. Rep. 226), 73a.
Werely v. Persons (28 N. Y, 344), 53.
Werner v. Com. (80 Ky. 387), 51.
Werner v, Litzinger (45 Mo. App.
106), 239.
Wesley v. State (37 Miss. 327), 10.
Wessels v. Beeman (87 Mich. 481),
. 11, 83.
West V. Home Ins. Co. (18 Fed. Rep.
623), 50.
West V. Randall (3 Mason, 181), 309.
West V. Smith (101 U. S. 263), 75, 76.
West V. State (76 Ala. 98), 5, 7.
West V. Van Tuyl (119 N. Y 620), 60.
West Boylston v. Sterling (17 Pick.
126), 361.
Westbrook v. Aultman (8 Ind. App.
83; 28N. E. Eep. 1011), 341.
Westbrook v. State (Ga., 1893, 16
S. E. Rep. 100), 93, 249.
Westbrooke, In re (W. N., 1873,
p. 167), 233.
Westerman v. Westerman (35 Ohio
St. 500), 168.
Western Ins. Co. v. Tobin (32 Ohio
St. 377), 198.
Western Ry. Co. v. Lazarus (88 Ala.
453), 199.
Western Union T. Co. v. Bennett (1
Tex. Civ. App. 28), 73a, 250.
Western Uniqn T. Co. v. Cline (Ind.,
1894, 35 N. E. Rep. 564), 90.
Western Union T. Co. v. Collins (45
Kan. 88), 35.
Western Union T. Co. v. Shalter (71
Ga. 760), 33.
Western Union T. Co. v. Way (83
Ala. 542), 231.
Westfall V. Madison (62 Iowa, 427),
346.
Westman v. Krumweide (30 Minn.
313), 212.
Westmoreland v. Carsen (76 Tex.
619), 316.
Westmoreland v. Richardson (Tex.,
1893, 21 S. W. Rep. 157), 152.
Westmoreland v. State (45 Ga. 225),
80.
Weston V. Brown (30 Neb. 609), 9,
336, 387.
Weston V. Graves (49 Vt. 507), 6.
Weston V. Moody (39 Fla. 169), 273.
Weston y. Penman (1 Mason, 506),
144.
CXCIV
TABLE OF CASES.
Weston V. White (5 Md. 397), 221.
Westover v. ^tna L. I. Co. (99 N. S.
57), 178.
West Side Bank v. Meehan (66 Hun,
627), 376.
Wetherbee v. Norris (103 Mass. 565),
349.
Wetberill v. Sullivan (65 Pa. St. 105),
232.
Wetumpka v. Wharf Co. (63 Ala.
611), 243.
Wetzel V. Kelly (88 Ala. 440), 237,
241.
Weyman v. Thompson (25 Atl. Rep.
205), 67.
Weymouth v. Broadway, etc, Co.
(2 Misc. R. 506), 350.
Whalen v. Brennan (34 Neb. 139; 51
N. W. Rep. 759), 871.
Whalen v. New York (17 Fed. Rep.
73), 376.
Wharf V. Prescott (7 Allen, 494), 84.
Wharter v. McMahan (10 Paige, N.
Y., 386), 368.
Wharton v. Douglass (76 Pa. St. 273),
308.
Wheatly v. Williams (1 M. & W.
533), 170.
Wheaton v. Peters (8 Pet. 658), 230.
Wheeler v. Alderman (34 S. C. 583),
74.
Wheeler v. Bent (7 Pick. 61), 139.
Wheeler v. Billings (33 N. Y. 263),
308.
Wheeler v. Doolittle (3 Wash. 440),
69.
Wheeler v. MoLoughlin (8 N. Y. S.
95), 150a.
Wheeler v. Nevins (84 Me. 54), 368.
Wheeler v. Walker (12 Vt. 427), 133.
Wheeler v. West (71 Cal. 126), 76.
Wheeler v. Wheeler (18 N. Y. State
Rep. 445; 2 N. Y. S. 446), 331,
809.
Wheeler v. Winn (58 Pa. St. 126),
379.
Wheelock v. Godfrey (Cal., 1894, 35
Pac. Rep. 317), 197.
Eeferences are to sections.
Wheelwright v. Akin (Ga., 1893, IT
S. E. Rep. 610), 321.
Wheton v. Snyder (88 N. Y. 299),
199.
Whidby Land Co. v. Nye (5 Wash.
St. 501), 373.
Whipp V. State (34 Ohio St. 87, 89),
166.
Whitaker v. Galesburg (15 Pick. 544),
348.
Whitaker v. Marsh (62 N. H. 478),.
121.
Whitaker V. Parks (42 Iowa, 586),
189.
Whitaker v. Salisbury (15 Pick. 534X
138.
Whitaker v. State (79 Ga. 87; 3 S.
E. Rep. 403), 101.
Whitaker v. White (69 Hun, 388), 60.
Whitaker v. Williams (20 Conn. 98),
84.
Whitbeck v. Walters (4 C. & P. 375),
53.
Whitcher v. McLaughlin (115 Mass. ■
167), 144.
Whitcherv. Shattuck(3 Allen, Mass.,
545), '300.
Whitcomb's Case (130 Mass. 133),
288.
White V. Ashton (51 N. Y. 280), 83.
White V. Barley (10 Mich. 155), 697.
White V. Benjamin (138 N. Y. 633),
250.
White V. Conneyy (105 N.-C. 65),
136.
White V. Crew (16 Ga. 416), 268.
White V. Davidson (8 Md. 169), 74.
White V. Davis (17 N. Y. S. 548; 63
Hun, 623), 197.
White V. German Bank (9 Eeisk.,
Tenn., 478), 73.
White V. Graves (107 Mass. 335), 8,
157.
White v. Hinton (3 Wyo. 753), 150a.
White V. Insurance Co, (83 Me. 279),
241.
White V. Johnson (4 Wash. St. 113;
29 Pac. Rep. 933), 350.
TABLE OP OASES.
cxov
Eeferenoes are to sections.
White V. Leads (51 Pa. St. 189), 386.
White V. Lisle (4 Madd. 214), 114.
White V. Mass (75 Ala. 207), 24.
White V. Milw. etc Co. (61 Wis. 536),
203.
White V.Morgan (119 Ind. 338), 324.
White V. Old Dom. S. Co. (102 N. Y.
662), 76.
White V. Portland (63 Conn. 18; 36
Atl. Rep. 342), 71, 283,
White V. State (21 Tex. App. 389),
11.
White V. State (52 Miss. 216), 324.
White V. State (30 Tex. App. 652; 18
S. W. Rep. 462), 103.
-White V. Watkins (33 Mo. 423), 268.
White V. White (82 Cal. 427 ; 23 Pac.
Rep. 276), 114, 333.
White V. Whitney (23 Pac. Rep.
1188; 83 Cal. 168), 60, 144.
White's Case (3 Leach's Crim. Cas.
430), 317.
Whitehall v. Kellar (100 Pa. St. 89),
■73a.
Whitehead v. Rogets (106 Mo. 331),
210.
Whitehead v. School District (145
Pa. St. 418), 181.
Whitehurst v. Com. (79 Va. 556),
123.
Whiteley v. Insurance Co. (72 Wis.
170; 89 N. W. Rep. 369), 232.
Whiteley, In re (1891, 1 Ch. 558),
314.'
Whitelocke v. Baker (13 Ves. 514),
113.
White Sew. Mach. Co. v. Dakin (86
Mich. 581), 128.
Whitesides v. Hunt (97 Ind. 191),
349.
Whiteside's Appeal (33 Pa, St. 114),
233.
Whitford v. Clark Co. (119 U. S.
523), 361.
Whitford v. Laidler (94 N. Y. 155),
73a.
Whiting V. Miss. V. I. Co. (76 Wis.
593), 333.
Whiting V. Traynor (74 Wis. 293),
310.
Whitlock V. Castro (32 Tex. 108), 389.
Whitlow V. State (Tex., 1893, 18 S.
W. Rep. 865), 324.
Whitlock V. Ramsey (2 Munf. 510),
22.
Whitman v. Haywood (14 S. W. Rep.
166; 77 Tex. 157), 66, 115.
Whitmer v. Fry (10 Mo. 348), 128.
Whitley v. Gay lord (1 Jones' L., N.
a, 194), 139.
Whitman v. Henneberry (73 111. 109),
105, 108.
Whitney v. Arnold (10 Cal. 531), 136.
Whitney v. Bigelow (4 Pick. 110), 61.
Whitney v. Cotton Mills (Mass., 1890,
24 N. E. Rep. 774), 235.
Whitney v. Gross (140 Mass. 232), 8.
Whitney v. Houghton (125 Mass.
451), 50, 79.
Whitney v. Nicoll (46 111. 230), 233.
Whitney v. Phelps (33 Me. 318), 205.
Whitney v. Shippen (89 Pa. St. 23),
212.
Whitney Mfg. Co. v. Richmond &
D. R. Co. (S. C, 1893, 17 S. E.
Rep. 147), 21.
Whitney Wagon Works v. Moore
(61 Vt. 230; 17 Atl. :Sep. 1007), 75.
Whitridge v. Whitridge (Md., 1893,
34 Atl. Rep. 645), 350.
Whittier v. Dana (10 Allen, 336), 314.
Whittier v. Franklyn (46 N. H. 33),
185.
Whitwell V. Winslow (134 Mass. 343),
83.
Whitwell V. Wyer (11 Mass. 6, 10),
80.
Whyte V. Arthur (17 N. J. Eq. 531),
218.
Wich V. Equitable F. & M. Ins. Co.
(Colo., 1893, 31 Pac. Rep. 389),
300.
Wichita University v. Schweiter (50
Kan. 672), 310.
Wickersham v. Reeves (1 Iowa, 417),
136.
CXCVl
TABLE OF OASES.
Beferenoes are to sections.
Wickes V. Swift E. L. Co. (70 Mich.
322), 139a, 217.
Wicks V. State (28 Tex. App. 448),
227.
Wiggin V. Chicago (5 Mo. App. 347),
242.
Wiggins V. Burkham (10 Wall. 139),
239.
Wiggins V. Leonard (9 Iowa, 194),
, 69.
Wiggins V. Wallace (19 Barb. 338),
198.
Wigginton v. Com. (17 S. W. Rep.
634 ; 92 Ky. 282), 93.
Wigl.t V. Rindskopf (43 Wis. 349),
323.
Wilbur V. Eicholtz (5 Col. 240), 140.
Wilbur V. Seldon (6 Cowen, N. Y.,
162), 131.
Wilbur V. Strickland (1 Rawle, 458),
96.
Wilbur V. Wilbur (129 111. 892), 348,
253.
Wilcox V. Corwin (23 N. E. Rep.
500 i 117 N.Y. 500), 308.
Wilcox V. Greene (28 Conn. 573), 80.
Wilcox V. Howell (44 N. Y. 398), 84.
Wilcox V. Jackson (109 111. 261), 237.
Wilcox V. Monday (89 Ind. 232),
150a.
Wilcox V. Smith (5 Wend. 331), 36.
Wilcox V. Wilcox (46 Hun, 33), 38a.
Wilcoxon V. Osborn (77 Mo. 631),
136.
Wilder V. Coles (100 Mass. 490), 347.
Wilder v. St. Paul (12 Minn. 106),
131.
, Wiley V. Athol (150 Mass. 430), 56.
Wiley V. Inhabitants (150 Mass. 436),
143.
Wiley V. Moor (17 S. & R. 438), 128.
Wiley V. Morse (30 Mo. App. 366),
308.
Wiley V. State (74 Ga. 840), 23.
Wilke V. People (53 N. Y. 525), 167.
Wilkerson v. Com. (88 Ky. 29), 283,
Wilkerson v. Sohoonmaker (77 Tex.
615), 147.
Wilkersons v. Eilers (Mo., 1893, 21
5. W. Rep. 134), 341.
Wilkins v. State (Ala., 1893, 18 S.
Rep. 312), 381.
Wilkins v. Stidger (22 Cal. 331), 79.
Wilkinson v. Moseley (30 Ala. 563),
194.
Wilkinson v. Scott (17 Mass. 257),
208.
Wilkinson v. Ward (42 111. App. 541),
367.
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson (59 Wis. 64),
24. '_
Willard v. Cramer (86 Iowa, 22),
135.
Willard v. Judd (15 John. 581), 356.
Willard v. Killing worth (8 Conn.
247), 143a.
Willard v. Ostrander (51 Kan. 481 ;
32 Pac. Rep. 1092), 152.
Willard v. Siegal (47 Mo. App. 1), 10.
Willard y. State (37 Tex. App. 386),
93.
Willard v. Superior Court (82'Cal.
456), 377.
Willett v". Rich (142 Mass. 357), 247.
Willey V. Portsmouth (35 N. H. 303),
193.
Williams v. Armory (7 Cranoh, 433),
158.
Williams V. Baker (71 Pa. St. 476,
483), 136, 157.
Williams v. Baldwin (7 Vt. 506), 168.
Williams v. Breckell (37 Miss. 683),
33.
Williams v. Butcher (23 Neb. 683; 37
N. W. Rep. 586), 353.
Williams v. Clink (90 Mich. 297), 373.
Williams v. Com. (Ky., 1892, 18 S.
W. Rep. 364), 378.
Williams V. Com. (91 Pa. St. 493),
384.
Williams V. Conger (125 U. S. 397).
105.
Williams v. Deen (Tex., 1894, 24 S.
W. Rep. 536), 139.
Williams v. Dickenson (38 Fla. 90),
6, 11, 321, 354a.
TA3LE OF OASES.
OXCVIl
Beferences are to sections.
Williams v. Fresno Canal & In-. Co.
(30 Pac. Rep. 961 ; 96 Cal. 14), 369.
Williams v. Hardee (Tex., 1893, 21
S. W. Rep. 367), 108.
Williams v. Hubbard (1 Mich. 446),
244.
Williams v. Ingell (21 Pick., Mass.,
388), 205.
Williams v. Jones (5 B. & C. 108),
267.
Williams v. Kaiser (11 Fla. 234), 80.
Williams v. Lee (47 Mo. 321), 197.
Williams v. Moore (68 Ga. 585), 150a.
Williams v. People (54 111. 422), 102.
Williams v. Perkins (83 Mo. 379),
308.
Williams v. Poppleton (8 Oreg. 139),
193.
Williams v. Robinson (43 Vt. 678),
231.
Williams \. State (6 Ala. 83), 139.
Williams v. State (19 Ga. 403), 121.
Williams v. State (50 Ark. 511 ; 9 S.
W. Rep. 5), 231.
Williams v. Slate (52 Ala. 411), 76.
Williams v. State (12 S. W. Rep. 1103 ;
38 Tei. App. 301), 346.
Williams t. State (24 Tex. App. 687),
850.
Williams v. State (25 Tex. App. 176),
348.
Williams v. State (Ala., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 333), 354.
Williams v. State (Fla., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 834), 340.
Williams v. State (64 Ind. 553), 238.
Williams v. State (Tex., 1892, 19 S.
W. Rep. 897), 196.
Williams V. State (67 Ga. 360), 338.
Williams v. State (24 Tex. App. 17,
32; 4 S. W. Rep. 64), 88.'
Williams v. Stevens (73 Wis. 487),
317.
Williams v. Taunton (125 Mass. 54),
201.
' Williams V. Tracy (95 Pa. St. 308), 74.
Williams v. United States (137 U. S.
113), 876.
Williams v. Vreeland (39 N. J. Eq.
■ 417), 333.
Williams v. Wager (64 Vt. 336), 336.
Williams v. Walbridge (3 Wend.
415), 310.
Williams v. Walker (3 Rich. Eq. 391),
348.
Williams V. Willard(23 Vt. 369), 120.
Williams' Ex'r v. Williams (Kj.,
1890, 13 S. W. Rep. 250), 309.
Williams v. Williamson (6 Ired. L.,
N. C, 281), 73a.
Williams v. Woods (16 Md. 230), 339.
Williamson v. State 59 Miss. 335),
308.
Williamson v. State (30 Tex. 330; 17
S. W. Rep. 732), 5.
Williamson v, Wright (75 Me. 55),
150a.
Williard v. Williard (56 Pa. St. 119),
70.
Willis V. Barnard (8 Bing. 376), 52.
Willis V. Fernald (33 N. J". L. 206),
220.
Willis V. Kern (21 La. Ann. 749),
208.
Willis V. Lyman (22 Tex. 268), 356.
Willis V. West (60 Ga. 613), 169.
Willis' Case (15 How. St. Tr. 623-
635), 389.
Willmerding v. McGauhey (30 Iowa,
205), 217.
Wilmington v. Burlington (4 Pick.
174), 53.
Willoughby v. Dewey (54 111. 206), 7.
Wilson V. Betts (4 Denio, 201), 108.
Wilson V. Boarem (15 Johns. 286),
102.
Wilson V. Bowden (113 Mass. 432),
70.
Wilson V. Brownlee (24 Ark. 546), 53.
Wilson T. Bumstead (13 Neb. 1),
241.
Wilson V. Calvert (8 Ala. 757), 80.
Wilson v». Clark (1 Ind. App. 182 ; 27
N. E. Rep. 310), 9.
Wilson V. Cockrell (8 Mo. 7), 242.
Wilson V. Conine (2 Johns. 280), 147.
CXCVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Wilson V. Donaldson (117 Ind. 356),
385.
Wilson V. Heath (68 Hun, 209), 376,
878.
Wilson V. Horn (65 Ala. 448), 233.
Wilson V. Irish (62 N. Y. 260), 140.
Wilson V. McCuUough (33 Pa. St.
440), 333.
Wilson V. Powers (131 Ind. 539), 213.
Wilson V. Railroad (114 N. Y. 487),
373.
Wilson V. Railroad (31 Minn. 481),
33.
Wilson V. Rastall (4 T. R. 759), 172,
178.
Wilson V. Russell (61 N. H. 355), 309.
Wilson V. Sheppard (28 Ala. 623J,
166.
Wilson V. Shipman (31 Neb. 573),
150a.
Wilson V. Siinpson (16 S. W. Rep.
40), 106.
Wilson T. Spring (64 III. 18), 74.
Wilson V. State (Miss., 1893, 13 S.
Rep. 333), 24.
Wilson V. State (57 Ind. 71), 284.
Wilson V. State (41 Tex. 330), 193.
Wilson V. State (30 Fla. 384), 9.
Wilson V. Troup (7 Johns. Ch. 35),
73. •
Wilson V. Tucker (10 R. I. 578), 210.
Wilson V. Van Leer (137 Pa. St. 371),
139, 337.
Wilson V. Wright (8 Utah, 315; 30
Pac. Rep. 754), 31.
Wilton V. Webster (7 Car. & P. 198),
53.
Wimer v. Smith (33 Oreg. 469), 239,
351.
Winans v. Durham (5 Wend. 47),
147.
Winans v. Railroad Co. (21 How.,
U. S., 101), 189.
Winch V. Norman (65 Iowa, 186), 140.
Winchell v. Express Co. (61 Vt. 15),
373.
Winchester v. Whitney (138 Mass.
549), 68.
Windom v. Schappel (39 Minn. 35),
239.
Windsor v. McVeigh (93 U. S. 374),
233.
Wing V. Angrave (8 H. L. Cas. 183,
198), 333.
Wing V. Peck (54 Vt. 345), 308.
Winklemeier v. Daber (53 N. Vif. Rep.
1036 ; 92 Mich. 621), 383.
Winkler v. Schlager (19 N. Y. S.
100), 71.
Winn V. Chamberlain (33 Vt. 3lS),
309.
Winn V. Patterson (9 Pet., U. S.,
677), 6, 3Q, 105, 106.
Winner v. Lathrop (67 Hun, 511),
303.
Winnie v. Tousley (36 Hun, 190), 140.
Winn. Lake Co. v. Young (40 N. H.
420), 339.
Winona v. Burke (33 Minn. 354), 243.
Winship v. O'Conner (43 N. H. 341),
233.
Winslow V. Morrill (68 Me. 862), 343.
Winslow V. State (93 Ala. 78), 374.
Winslow V. Tulan (48 111. 145), 69.
Winsor v. Dillaway (4 Met. 231), 60.
Winter v. Burt (31 Ala. 33), 73a.
Winter v. Cent. Iowa R. Co. (80
Iowa, 448 ; 45 N. W. Rep. 737),
350, 351.
Wirt V. Dinan (44 Mo. App. 583),
353, 358.
Wischstadt v. Wischstadt (47 Minn.
38; 50 N. W. Rep. 325), 340.
Wisdom V. State (U Colo. 170), 324.
Wise V. Ackerman (51 Md. 937), 8.
Wise V. Newatney (26 Neb. 88 ; 42
N. W, Rep. 389), 50.
Wiseman v. Fleischer (10 Pa. Co.
Ct. R. 300), 128.
Witcher v. McLaughlin (115 Mass.
167), 58.
Witford V. Clark Co. (119 U. S. 532),
361.
Wither v. Roe (45 Me. 671), 140.
Withers v. Richardson (5 T. B. Mori.,
Ky., 94), 84.
TABLE 01' CASES.
CXCIX
Heferences are to sections.
Witmer v. Schlatter (3 Rawle, 359),
157.
Witt V. State (6 Cold., Tenn., 5), 23.
Witte V. Weinberg (S. C, 1893, 17
S. E. Rep. 6Slj, 380.
Witters v. Sowles (33 Fed. Rep. 130),
175.
Wittier v. Gould (8 Watts, Pa., 485),
139a.
Wit well V. Wyer (11 Mass. 6), 80.
Woburn v. Henshaw (101 Mass. 193),
174.
Wohlgemuth v. United States (N. M.,
1893, 30 Pac. Rep. 854), 34.
Wolf V. Arthur (N. C, 1898, 16 S. E.
Rep. 843), 185.
Wolf V. Foster (13 Kan. 116), 35.
Wolf V. Wolf (3 Har. & G., Md., 383),
805.
Wolf V. Wyeth (11 S. & R. 149), 134.
Wolfe V. Underwood (13 S. Rep. 234 ;
96 Ala. 329), 369.
Wolfe V. Washburn (6 Conn. 261),
147.
Wolfert V. Pittsburg R. Co. (44 Mo.
App. 330), 223.
Wolff V. Campbelle (110 Mo. 114; 19
S. W. Rep. 633), 11.
Wolff V. Mathews (39 Mo. App. 376),
130.
Wolford V. Faruham (47 Minn. 95),
7, 37, 373.
Wolverton v. State (16 Ohio St. 173),
38.
Wood V. Barber (90 N. C. 76), 69.
Wood V. Council (143 Pa. St. 467), 13.
Wood V. Davis (7 Cranch, 371), 151.
Wood V. Fisk (63 N. H. 173), 66, 110,
115.
Wood V. Insurance Co. (46 N. Y.
431), 241.
Wood V. Kinsman (5 Vt. 588), 287.
Wood V. State (92 Ind. 269), 102.
Wood V. State (58 Miss. 741), 197.
Wood V. State (31 Fla. 331 ; 13 S.
Rep. 539), .6.
Wood v. State (Ind., 1893, 38 N. E.
Rep. 908), 355.
Wood V. Wattinson (17 Conn. 500),
158.
Wood V. Whiting (31 Barb. 190),
211.
Wood V. Wood (47 Kan. 617), 343.
Woodard v. ,Spiller (1 Dana, Ky.,
180), 140.
Woodbeck v. Keeler (6 Cow. 118),
384.
Woodbury v. Anoka (52 Minn. 339 ;
54 N. W. Rep. 187), 343.
Woodcock V. Woodcock (36 Minn.
217), 197.
Woodcock V. Worcester (138 Mass.
368), 18. ^
Woodcock's Case (3 Leach, C. C.
563), 101.
Woodford v. McClenahan (4 Gilm.,
9 111., 85), 139.
Woodin V. People (1 Park. C. C, N.
Y., 464), 196.
Woodman v. Dana (53 Me. 9), 139.
Woodman v. Woodman (47 N. H.
130), 197.
Wood River Bank v. Dodge (36 Neb.
708; 55 N. W. Rep. 334), 343.
Woodruff V. Imperial F. I. Co. (83
N. Y. 113), 198.
Woodruff V. McHarry (56 111. 318),
135.
Woodruff V. State (31 Fla. 320; 13
S. Rep. 653), 8.
Woodruff V. Taylor (20 Vt. 65), 158.
Woodruff V. White (25 Neb. 745), 71.
Woods V. Bank (14 N. H. 101), 73a,
146.
Woods V. Bonner (89 Tenn. 411), 31.
Woods V. Burke (67 Mich. 674; 35
N. W. Rep. 768), 130.
Woods V. Com. (86 Va. 939), 326.
Woods V. Davis (34 N. H. 338), 386.
Woods V. Durette (38 Tex. 439), 34.
Woods V. Graves (144 Mass. 385), 76.
Woods V. Hilderbrand (46 Mo. 284),
128.
Woods V. Keys (14 Allen, 236), 134.
Woodson Maoh. Co. v. Morse (47
Kan. 429), 347.
TABLE OF CASES.
Woodward v. Buchanan (5 Q. B.
285), 8.
Woodward v. Bugsbee (2 Hun, 128),
199.
Woodward v. Foster (18 N. T. S.
827), 212.
Woodward v. LeaTitt(107 Mass. 453),
50, 176.
Woodward v. Railroad Co. (21 Wis.
309), 239.
Woodward v. Sibert (82 Va. 441),
213.
Woodworth v. Barker (1 Hill,' 176),
180.
Woodworth v. Cook (2 Blatchf. 151),
223. •
Woolen V. Wire (119 Ind. 251), 124.
Wooley V. Constant (4 Johns. 54),
128.
Woolfolk V. State (85 Ga. 69), 90, 176,
193, 283.
Woolsey v. Bohn (41 Minn. 237),
60.
Woolsey v. Jones (84 Ala. 88), 282.
Woolworth V. MoPherson (55 Fed.
Rep. 558), 209.
Wooster v. Butler (13 Conn. 309),
115.
AVooster v. Simonson (20 Fed. Rep.
316), 208.
Wooten V. Burch (3 Md. Ch. 190),
305.
Wooten V. Wilkins (39 Ga. 223),
103.
Worcester v. Cheney (94 III. 430),
238.
Worcester v. NorthboroUgh (140
. Mass. 400), 144.
Worden v. Van Gieston (6 Dem., N.
Y. Sur.. 237), 131.
Work V. Beach (129 N. Y. 651),
209.
Workman v. Greening (115 111. 477),
228.
Worley v. Hinman (Ind., 1898, 33
N. E. Rep. 866), 74, 230.
Worrell v. Forsyth <I11., 1892, 30 .N.
E. Rep. 673), 214.
Eeferenoes are to sections.
Worsham v. McLeod (Miss , 1892, 11
S. Rep. 107), 371.
Worth V. McConnell (43 Mich. 473},
139.
Wortham v. Thompson (81 Tex. 348),
83.
Worthington v. Mencer (Ala., 1892,
11 S. Rep. 72), 317.
Worthington v. Soribner (109 Mass.
487), 175.
Worthington v. Worthington (33
Neb. 334), 380.
Wright V. Bundy (11 Ind. 398), 136.
Wright V. Burritt (63 Hun, 628),
283.
Wright V. Cane (18 La. Ann. 597),
263.
Wright V. Dickinson (Mich., 1890, 43
N. W. Rep. 849), 74.
Wright V. Douglass (10 Barb. 97),
282.
Wright V. Fonda (44 Mo. App. 634),
11.
Wright V. Hardy (22 Wis. 348), 193.
Wright V. Hawkins (28 Tex. 452),
239.
Wright V. Hazen (24 Vt. 143), 82.
Wright V. Hicks (15 Ga. 160), 350
Wright V. Maseras (56 Barb. 531), 79.
Wright V. McKee (37 Vt. 161), 10.
Wright V. Mulvaney (78 Wis. 89), 11.
Wright V. Samuda (2 Phil. 266, 377),
233.
Wright V. State (7 Tex. App. 574),
127.
Wright V. Stowe (4 Jones' L., N. G,
516), 124.
Wright V. Weimeister (87 Mich. 494),
83.
Wright V. Williams (47 Vt. 232),
190.
Wright V. Wilson (17 Mich. 192),
135.
Wright V. Wright (139 Mass. 177), 9,
250.
Wright V. Wright (7 N. J. L. 175),
138.
Wright V. Wright (5 Ind. 389), 129.
TABLE OF OASES.
CCl
Beferences are to sections.
Wurzburger v. Merie (30 La. Ann.
' 415), 223.
WyckofE V. Remsen (11 Paige, 564),
229.
Wynn v. City R. R. Co. (Ga., 1893,
17 S. E. Rop. 649), 30, 334, 343.
"Wynn v. Small (103 N. C. 33), 138.
Wylie V. Miss. Pao. R. Co, (41 Fed.
Eep. 623), 128.
Wroe V. State (80 Ohio St. 460), 102.
Wyattv. People (17 Colo. 253), 284.
Wynne t. Glydwell (17 Ind. 446), 70.
Yadon v. Mackey (50 Kan. 630), 380.
Yaeger v. Henry (39 111. App. 21),
232.
Yale T. Comstock (113 Mass. 267),
120.
Yandes v. Lafavour (3 Blaokf. 371),
69.
Yarborough v. Mass (9 Ala. 383), 80.
Yardley v. Culbertson (108 Pa. St.
395), 188.
Yard's Case (10 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 41),
388.
Yates V. Fraser (6 111. App. 239),
367.
Yates V. People (32 N. Y. 509), 5.
Yates V. People (38 111. 527), 343.
Yates V. Shaw (34 III. 367), 115.
Yates V. Yates (76 N. C. 143), 140.
Yeaton v. Fry (6 Cranch, 335), 149,
243.
Yeaw V. "Williams (15 R. I. 30), 185,
197.
Yehn Jim v. Territory (1 "Wash. St.
63), 238.
Yell V. Lane (41 Ark. 53), 244.
Yeomans v. Petty (40 N. J. Eq, 495),
140.
Yerkes v. Bank (69 N. Y. 383), 342.
Yocum V. Barnes (8 B. Men., Ky.,
496), 73a.
Yordy v. Marshall (Iowa, 1893, 53 N.
"W. Rep. 298), 73a._
York V. Conde (66 Hun, 316), 75.
York V. Fortenbury(15 Colo. 129), 31.
York V. Maine R. Co. (84 N. Y. 17),
11.
York V. Pease (3 Gray, Mass., 383),
375.
Yorty V. Paine (63 "Wis. 154), 136.
Yost V. Mensoh (27 "W. N. C. 563), 11.
Yost V. Minn. Hard. "Works (41 111.
App. 556), 339.
Young V. Bank (4 Cranch, 384), 141,
142.
Young V. Board of Mahoning Co. (51
Fed. Eep. 585), 56, 84.
Young V. Black (7 Cranch, U. S.,
426), 19.
Young V. Brady (94 Cal. 128), 350,
374.
Young V. Com. (8 Bush, 366), 95.
Young V. Cook (15 La. Ann. 136),
311.
Young V. Dearborn (32 N. H. 373),
134.
Young V. Duval (109 U. S. 573), 136,
157.
Young V. English (7 Beav. 10), 376.
Young V. Heflfner (36 Ohio St. 333),
233.
Young V. Highland (9 Gratt., Va. ,
16), 349.
Young V. Johnson (133 N. Y. 236),
196.
Young V. Kansas City, T. S. & M.
R. Co. (89 Mo. App. 59), 110.
Young V. Laird (30 Ala. 571), 77.
Young V. Laniont (Minn., 1893, 57
N. "W. Rep. 478), 350.
Young T. Luce (66 Hun, 631), 60.
Young V. Rollins (78 N. C. 485),
356.
Young V. State (30 Tex. App. 308),
33.
Young V. State (Ala., 1893, 10 S. Rep.
913), 13, 101.
Young V. "Wright (1 Campb. 139), 74.
Youngberg v. Nelson (51 Minn. 172;
53 N. W. Rep. 629), 205, 319.
Younger v. Duffie (94 N. Y. 535),
376.
ceil
TABLE OF CASES.
Youree v. Territory (Ariz., 1892, 29
Pac. Rep. 894), 93.
Yrissari v. Clement (2 C. & P. 223),
243.
Yundt V. Hartranft (41 III. 9), 52.
z.
Zabel V. Nyenhuis (83 Iowa, 750), 220.
Zacharie v. Franklin (13 Pet. 151),
374.
Zebley v. Storey (117 Pa. St. 478),
350.
^echtmann v, Roberts (109 Mass. 53),'
83.
Beferences are to sectiCQis.
Zeehandelaur, Ex parte (71 Cal. 238),
333.
Zeininger v, Schnitzler (48 Kan. 66),
24.
Zepp V. Hager (70 111. 238), 232.
Zievernick v. Kempner (Ohio, 1892,
34 N. E. Rep. 250), 157.
Zimmerman v. Zimmerman (28 Pa.
St. 375), 210.
Zitser v. Merkel (24 Pa. St. 408),
10.
Zoldoske v. State (82 Wis. 580),
330.
Zucker v. Karpeles (88 Mich. 413),
250, 340.
THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.
INTEODUCTOKY CHAPTEE.
1. Early development of law.
2. Evidence defined.
3. The basis of belief.
4. Direct and circumstantial evi-
dence distinguished.
5. Nature and effect of circum-
stantial evidence,
6. Reasonable doubt and the weight
of evidence.
§ 1. Early development of law. — All lavr, whatever its ul-
timate form, is in its origin the result of customs observed in
social and commercial intercourse, which often have their
commencement at a date long anterior to the existence of any
regular form of government. Thus, long before any supreme-
political authority exists, it is found that rules are practiced
regulating the family relation, the making of contracts,. the-
rights of ownership, and the punishment of violence.
When human controversies ceased to be wholly adjusted
by force and came before the primitive tribunals which obtain
in the early history of every nation, these ciistoms, which are
merely a reflection or embodiment of the existing popular
morality, are impressed with the character of legal rules by
their recognition by the courts.
Early procedure is conservative and artificial. The judges
are of necessity compelled to rely on custom and precedent.
The private rights which grow up around and are based upon
the old custom which has become a rule of law demand rigid-
ity and unchangeableness.
Early law is always developed as a system of procedure,
and by rude and ignorant peoples form and substance are usu-
ally confounded. A blind devotion to* the letter, causing-
hardship and injustice, is the dominating, character of early
jurisprudence. This was particularly true of the English
1
2 INTEODUCTOEY. [§ 2.
common lavv, as it was slowly developed -by the judicial inter-
pretation and recognition of feudal principles and customs.
The extreme technicality of the common law regarding the
ownership of real property, and the framing of pleading in an
action, is well known. Hence it need occasion no surprise that
when the rules of legal evidence began to be formulated in
connection with the development of modern social and com-
mercial progress, they were based upon arbitrary principles
and infected with the prejudices and superstitions of a rude
and unlettered age.
So we find at various periods this branch of the law has
been influenced and acted upon by such arbitrary and bar-
barous conceptions as that a man would lie if permitted to
testify for himself, or that truth could be accurately ascer-
tained by the employment of physical torture inflicted on the
accused, or by compelling him to submit to a cruel ordeal.
But the advance of scientific, commercial and political' ideas,
with the progress of modern ideas bringing about legal re-
forms, has had a most important re-action upon the law of
evidence. That law is no longer harsh, technical and irre-
sponsive to the demands of progressive civilization, but adapt-
able to the needs of an age in which considerations of sim-
plicity and justice are paramount to forms and precedents,
and when the demand is not only for logical development
and coherence, but for flexibility to nevv uses and needs and
economy and speed in administration.
Hence, at the present day, the sole tests which should be
applied to ascertain the utility of a rule of evidence are, first,
does it, while admitting all facts which bear upon the issue,
tend to shorten or simplify legal proceedings; and second, is
it calculated to render this evidence more valuable by making
it more cogent and trustworthy.
§ 3. Evidence defined. — The word "evidence" having been
so frequently defined, it is unnecessary for the author to at-
tempt another definition, though it may be of use to ascertain
what eleraerits these definitions have in common, and what
idea is conveyed by all of them. It will be seen that they
agree that legal evidence is only a means to an end, and that
this end is the ascertainment of truth in the clearest and most
speedy manner.
§3-]
1NTEOD0OTOET.
The truth of any statement of fact, when ascertained, is said
to be proved; or, when mathematical truth is concerned, the
word " demonstration " is used, which excludes all possibility
of the existence of error.'
In the conduct of our every-day affairs we cannot expect,
and hence have do right to insist upon, a demonstration of
the truth of every statement of fact that is raade.^ We must
be content with evidence that will convince us beyond a rea-
sonable doubt and render it easier to believe that a given
proposition is probably true.'
Cumulative evidence means additional evidence of the same
character to support the same point as other evidence already
given.^
Corroborative evidence is additional evidence proving simi-
lar facts, or facts calculated to produce the same result as facts
already given in evidence.
Partial evidence is evidence of one fact in a series which
tends to prove the fact in issue.*
1 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 13.
2 "Facts are the sources or mate-
rials of evidence; evidence is the
medium by which facts are present."
Bouv. Law Diet
'"Evidence means and includes,
first, all statements which the court
permits or requires to be made be-
fore it by witnesses in relation to
matters of fact under inquiry ; such
statements are called oral evidence.
Second, all documents produced for
the inspection of the court; such
documents ai'e called documentary
evidence." Indian Evidence Act, § 3.
" Evidence means, first, statements
made by witnesses in court under a
legal sanction in relation to matters
of fact; such statements are called
oral evidence. Second, documents
produced for the inspection of the
court or judge ; such documents are
■ called documentary evidence." Ste-
phen, Digest of Evidence, art. 1.
" The word ' evidence,' in legal ac-
ceptation, includes all the means by
which any alleged matter of fact,
the truth of which is submitted to
investigation, is established or dis-
proved." Greenleaf on Evidence, § 1.
" Evidence includes the reproduc-
tion before the determining tribunal
of the admission of parties and of
facts relevant to the issue. Evidence
is adduced only by the parties
thi-ough witnesses, documents or in-
spection." Wharton on Evidence, § 3.
The word "evidence," considered
in relation to law, includes all the
legal means, exclusive of mere argu-
ment, which tend "to prove or dis-
prove any matter of fact the truth of
which is submitted to judicial inves-
tigation." Taylor on Evidence, § 1
(Text-book Series).
* People V. Supervisors, 10 Wend.
293 ; Guyot v. Butts, 4 id. 583 ; Par-
ker V. Hardy, 34 Pick. 346, 248.
6McCarney v. People, 83 N. Y. 408,
414, 415.
INTEODUCTOET.
[§5.
§ 3. Basis of belief.— It is a truism to- say that most of the
knowledge which is possessed by any individual is derived
from information imparted by others. So we must recognize
the truth that the disposition to believe, or, in other words, to
rely upon what others tell us, is inherent in humanity until, by
repeated acts of deception practiced upon us, we become in-
credulous and learn to distrust the statements of other men.
Thus at a comparatively early period in life we learn by
experience of the falsehoods uttered in our hearing that an,
urgent necessity exists for the use of rules and principles by
which the truth of what is said may be separated from that
which is false.
In the first place, the probability of any new fact with
which we become acquainted constitutes a strong, although
not the sole, ground for a belief in its truth. If the new fact
is consistent with others which we already know or believe to
be true, less evidence, or evidence of a less satisfactory char-
acter, is required to convince us of its truth than where the
new fact is wholly unlike anything in our experience.
The confirmation of the truth of any new fact by knowl-
edge already possessed will vary in proportion to the nature
of the fact communicated and the situation of the individual.
Thus a statement involving a new scientific discovery, as, for
example, that oral communication can be had by the telephone
between persons hundreds of miles apart, will be regarded as
extremely probable or as utterly absurd according as it is
made to a well-educated man or to an illiterate savage.
So, though the direct evidence of a witness is uncontra-
dicted, the jury may refuse to believe it, if from its inconsist-
ency and improbability they conclude that it is false.^
Though we may have been repeatedly deceived by the mis-
representations of others, we find by experience that men, as
a rule, tell the truth. Where neither prejudice nor passion
exists, and where an individual has no private interests to ad-
vance by distorting truth, we may rely upon the credibility
of his testimony, if we believe him to be a man of intelli-
gence, possessing adequate powers and opportunity for acquir-
1 Hawkins v. Sauby, 48 Minn. 69; jengren (Minn., 1893), 53 id. 219. See
50 N. W. Rep. 1015 ; Anderson v. Lil- 1 GreenL on Ev., §§ 7-11.
§ 3.] INTEODUOTOET. 6
ing knowledge. But where the testimony of persons, such
as police and private detectives and others engaged in the
detection of crime, or expert witnesses who are under pay,'
who from character or position are inclined to take prejudiced
or distorted views is inyolved, it will require a high degree of
evidence to satisfy the mind of an impartial hearer.^
Again, the well-recognized connection often observed be-
tween collateral or subordinate facts which are proved or
admitted and the main fact in issue frequently furnishes most
cogent and satisfactory proof of the existence of the latter.
This is only applying to the law of evidence the principles of
inductive reasoning, which are used, often unconsciously, by
all men in the conduct of their most trivial as well as of their
most important affairs. It furnishes a basis for the division
of evidence into direct and circumstantial, while on the other
hand, by permitting the jury in a cause to draw inferences or
presumptions from the facts, it has opened the door for the
creation of presumptions of law.
Another incident affecting the cred ibility of evidence is found
in the frequent occurrence of undesigned coincidences, which,
though sometimes startling and unexpected, are unaccount-
able except upon the hypothesis that the narrative of which
they are a part is true.' JSTo event stands alone. It is the
result of others which preceded it. It may in its turn be the
fruitful cause of many others which follow or relate to it. So
every fact or circumstance is connected with others of a col-
lateral nature, rendering it well nigh impossible for one to
concoct a narrative which on comparison with other and
related circumstances will stand the test.* Even by compar-
ing the various parts of the story, a mind trained in the habit
of investigation may quickly ascertain the truth or falsehood ;
for in such a case the fabrication, however skilfully con-
structed, will crumble to pieces by reason of its inherent lack
of verity.'
1 " Skilled witnesses come with such 2 Cen. R. Co. v. Attaway (Ga., 1893),
a bias on their minds to support the 16 S. E. Rep. 956.
cause in which they are embarked ^ United States v. Ybanez, 53 Fed.
that hardly any weight should be Eep. 536.
given to their evidence." In re Tracy, * 1 Greenl. on Ev., g§ 9, 13.
10 01. & F. 191. See post, § 188. * In Fife, Jones & Stewart v. Com.,
6. INTEODrCTOET. ', [§ L
§ 4. Direct and cii'cumstaiitial evidence distinguished. —
By direct evidence is meant evidence of such facts as consti-
tute the actual and present subject of the judicial investi-
gation; in other words, of those facts which are directly
in issue between the parties. To say that the evidence is
direct is equivalent to declaring that what the witness testifies
to as having seen or heard is the fact or facts which are af-
firmed and controverted by the parties. In such a case the
evidence has a direct and uninterrupted bearing and applica-
tion to the facts to be proved. But where the facts seen or
heard by tlie witness have, when shown, no direct bearing on
the facts in issue, but require a course of reasoning or inference
before their application to the latter can be apprehended, or
before the truth or falsity of the latter facts can be presumed,
the evidence is circumstantial.^
So where. the dead body of defendant's wife is found with
her throat cut in a manner which could not have been self-
inflicted, and it is shown that defendant was seen in her com-
pany the evening previous ; that near the body was found a
razor, a walking-stick that defendant admitted was his, and a
cuff button ; that defendant's razor was missing; that the cuff
button matched one in his possession, and that he had aban-
doned his wife, accusing her of infidelity, a chain of circum-
stances is forged leading irresistibly to the conclusion that ho
murdered her.^
Whether the evidence be direct or circumstantial, the truth-
fulness of the witness may be presumed by the jury ; but in
the latter case a further presumption is made, and the exist-'
29 Pa. St. 439, 438, the court said : "It i "Circumstantial evidence is tlie
must be remembered that jurors proof of certain facts in a given case
are men, and tliat it is because they from vpliich the jury may infer other
have human hearts and sympathies connected facts which usually and
and judgments that they are selected reasonably follow, according to the
to determine upon the rights of their common experience of mankind."
fellowmen. . . . Their oaths as State v. Avery (Mo., 1893), 31 S. W.
jurors rest on their consciences as Rep. 193.
men, and as men they are accountable ^ People v. Hamilton, 137 N. Y. 531.
to God and to their country for their See, also, Moreno v. State (Tex,, 1893),
verdict. Nothing more is demanded," 31 S. W. Rep. 924
See 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 13,
§ 5.] INTEObtrCTORY. - 7
ence or non-existence of the facts in issue is deduced from the
proved existence of other faots.^
From the nature of circumstantial evidence it follows that
its force wholly depends upon the fact that in each case some
direct evidence has been given from which the presumption
or inference may arise.
So in the class of cases in which fraud is alleged, or in whioh^
it is said that fraud will be presumed from the circumstances
of the parties, direct evidence of a clear and satisfactory char-
acter must be adduced before the existence of fraud will be
presumed; and the facts and circumstances must be estab-
lished beyond a reasonable doubt.^
The admissibility of circumstantial evidence depends solely
upon the strength and distinctness of the logical connection
between the facts proved and the inference which may be
made by the jury; in other words, whether such evidence is
receivable depends upon its relevancy to the fact in issue.
The question of relevancy is one for the decision of the judge.
To guide him in his decision upon the remoteness of the
evidence offered no general rule can be enunciated. Each
case must necessarily be decided on its own circumstances,
subject to the general qualification that all the evidence
offered, to be admissible, must tend to prove or disprove the
fact in issue.'
§ 5. Nature and effect of circumstantial evidence. — Cir-
cumstantial evidence is divided by the authorities into that
which is certain and that which is uncertain. In the former
' Com. V. Harmon, 4 Pa. St 269. to the inference must be distinctly
"The advantage of circumstantial and independently proved by compe-
evidence is that, as it commonly tent evidence; and the inference
comes from different sources, a chain must be fair and natural, not forced
of circumstances is less likely to be or artificial." Webster's Case, 5 Cush.
falsely prepared and falsehood is 311. See Com. v. Howe, 133 Mass.
more likely to be detected. The dis- 259.
advantage is that the jury have not 2 McAleer v. McMurray, 58 Pa. St
only to vpeigh the evidence of facts, 126 ; Douglass v. Mitchell, 35 id. 440
but to draw just conclusions from United States v. Ross, 92 U. S. 281
them ; in doing which there may be Kaiser v. State, 35 Neb. 704 ; State v.
led to make hasty and false deduo- Hunter, 50 Kan. 302; Kennedy v,
tions — a source of error not existing State, 12 S. Eep. 858 (Fla., 1893);
in the consideration of positive evi- Hutchison v. Boltz, 35 W. Va. 754.
denca Hence, each fact necessaiy 3 gee §g 7-10,
8 ruTBODrroTOET. [§ 5.
class the conclusion follows necessarily where the premises
are established ; in the latter it may or may not follow, ac-
cording to the course of reasoning pursued by the jury.' This
classification, however, is of small practical value, for the
weight of circumstantial evidence and the power to draw in-
ferences from it are matters which are wholly in the hands
of the jury, and they are not under the necessity of being
convinced by any degree of circumstantial evidence, however
satisfactory or certain it may appear. It is the duty of the
judge to instruct them as to the rules regulating the subject,
and where the evidence is wholly circumstantial it is reversi-
ble error for him to refuse to do so.-
So though the jury may, under the direction of the judge
as to the law, weigh the evidence and compare that which is
circumstantial with that which is direct, they are under no
sort of obligation to reject the former in favor of the latter,
or to ascribe to either any higher degree of probative force
than to the other. So the credibility of either description of
evidence depends on its intrinsic merit, as regards truthful-
ness and probability.' A conviction of crime may be had on
circumstantial evidence alone, provided the jury are convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt.* In other words, the circum-
stances should be not only consistent with the prisoner's guilt,
but irreconcilable with any other rational hypothesis.'
1 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 13a. liable than other evidence." People
2 Crowell V. State, 24 Tex. App. 404 ; v. Orquidas, 96 Cal. 239.
Boyd V. State, 24 id. 570 : Crowley v. < Kaiser v. State, 35 Neb. 704 ; State
State, 10 S. W. Rep. 217 ; 26 Tex. App. v. Hunter, 50 Kan. 802 ; Kennedy v.
378. But where no question of cir- State (Fla., 1893), 12 S. Rep. 858.
cumstantial evidence is involved the . * State v. Avery (Mo., 1893), 21
court need not instruct the jury upon S. W. Rep. 21; Nail v. State (Miss.,
the rules governing it Langdon v.
People, 133 111. 382 ; 24 N. E. Rep. 874
Smith V. State, 28 Tex. App. 309
Wampler v. State, 38 Tex. App. 353
Vaughan v. State (Ark., 1893), 30 S.
1893), 11 S. Rep. 793; State v. Dav-
enport (S. C, 1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 37;
State V. Taylor, 20 S. W. Rep. 239;
111 Mo. 538; State v. Milling, 35
S. C. 16; 14 S. E. Rep. 284; William-
W. Rep. 588; Cotton v. State, 87 son v. State, 30 Tex. 330; 17 a W.
Ala. 75. Rep. 722 ; State v. Woodward (Iowa,
3 People V. Morrow, 60 Cal. 143; 1892), 50 N. W. Rep. 885; People v.
State v. Slingerland, 19 Nev. 135 ; Dillwood, 94 Cal. 89 ; United States
Clark V. Coin., 133 Pa. St 555. v. McKenzie, 35 Fed. Rep. 836 ; Leon-
" Nothing in the nature of circuni- ard v. Territory, 3 Wash. T. 381 ;
stantial evidence renders it less re- Overman v. State, 49 Ark. 364; Dean
§6.]
INTEODtrOTOEY.
§ 6. Reasonable doubt and the weight of evidence — Alibi
in criminal trials. — Where civil riglits are involved, extreme
strictness of proof is not required, and the jury may decide
for either party according to the probability and weight of
evidence, so long as their verdict be in favor of that litigant
upon whose side the evidence preponderates.
The jury in criminal cases, however, are not permitted to
base their verdict on a mere preponderance of proof, but are
required, particularly where the evidence is circumstantial or
contradictory, to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
the accused is guilty.*
The rule that a preponderance of evidence is sufficient in a
civil suit is based upon the fact that proof arrived at by the
verdict will only result as a judgment for pecuniary damage
or establish a civil right. But in a criminal trial the accused
starts with a presumption of innocence which must be over-
come in addition to the evidence which he may adduce in his
own behalf. So the character, and perhaps the life, of the ac-
V. Com., 32 Gratt 912 ; Davis v. State,
74 Ga. 869 ; Russell v. Com., 78 Va.
600; Swigar v. State, 109 Dl. 372;
Poe V. State, 10 Lea (Tenn.), 673;
State V. Anderson, 10 Oreg. 448;
State V. Smith, 73 Iowa, 33 ; Com. v.
Robinson, 146 Mass. 371; Yates v.
People, 33 N. Y. 509 ; Com. v. Web-
ster, 59 Mass. 395 ; West v. State, 76
Ala. 98; People v. Beckwith, 108
N. Y. 67; State v. Johnson, 37 Minn.
493; People v. Reich, 110 N. Y. 660;
Jones V. State, 57 Miss. 684 ; State v.
Brewer, 98 N. C. 607.
" Perhaps strong circumstantial
evidence, in cases of crimes commit-
ted for the most part in secret, is
the most satisfactory of any from
which to draw the conclusion of
guilt; for men may be seduced to
perjury by many base motives, to
■which the secret nature of the of-
fense may sometimes afford a temp-
tation; but it can scarcely happen
that many circumstances, especially
if they be such over which the ac-
cuser could have no control, forming
altogether the links of a transaction,
should all unfortunately concur to fix
the presumption of guilt on an indi-
vidual, and yet such a conclusion be
erroneous." 1 East, P. C, ch. 5, § 9.
1 Pierce v. State (Tex., 1893), 23 S. W.
Rep. 587 ; State v. Johnson, 37 Minn.
493; Coleman v. State, 111 Ind. 563;
People V. Flynn, 73 Cal. 511 ; Hopt v.
People, 7 S. Ct. 614 ; McMeen v. Com.,
114 Pa. St 300; McKee v. State, 83
Ala. 33 ; Graves v. People (Colo., 1893j,
33 Pac. Rep. 63 ; Bramlette v. State,
31 Tex. App. 611 ; 8 S. W. Rep. 765 ;
State V. Blunt, 91 Mo. 503; Gardiner
V. State (N. J., 1893), 26 Atl. Rep. 30 ;
Gentry v. State (Tex., 1893), 20 S. W.
Rep. 551 ; MoDuffie v. State (Ga., 1893),
17 S. E. Rep. 505 ; Woodruff v. State
(Fla., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 653; State v.
Grant (Iowa, 1893), 53 N. W. Rep.
120 ; Weaver v. People, 133 111. 536 ;
Taylor v. Com. (Va., 1893), 17 S. E.
Rep. 81 ; Kelly v. People, 17 Colo.
130; Cross v. State, 132 Ind. 65;
10
INTEODUCTOET.
[§6,
cused is involved, while in civil cases the loss he may sustain,
however great, may be retrieved by his future efforts.^
But where the commission of a crime is in issue in a civil
suit, an irreconcilable lack of harmony prevails in the decis-
ions. In England,^ and in some of the states of the Union, it
is held that where the existence of a criminal intent is in issue
in a civil proceeding, the party alleging the intent must prove
its existence beyond a reasonable doubt.' But the weight of
the decisions is adverse to this proposition, for the great ma-
jority of them support the rule that an accusation of crime
in a civil suit may, inie anj'^ other fact in issue, be proven by
a preponderance of evidence.*
The meaning of the phrase " reasonable doubt " has been
the subject of much discussion, and many attempts have been
made to define it.^ Thus it has been defined as " a doubt for
Hunter v. State, 29 Fla. 486 ; State
V. Turner, 110 Mo. 196; Palmer-
ston V. Ter., 3 Wyo. 333 ; State v.
Whiton, 111 N. C. 695; People v.
Kerr, 6 N. Y. Crim. E. 406; United
States V. Meagher, 87 Fed. Rep. 875 ;
Perry v. State, 87 Ala. 30 ; State v.
Grant (Iowa, 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 120.
'■ See remarks of the court in Mut,
F. L Co. V. Usaw, 112 Pa. St. 89.
2 Steplien's Dig., art. 94.
, spolston V. See, 46 Iowa, 30;
Mead v. Husted, 52 Conn. 56 ; Will-
iams V. Dickerson, 28 Fla. 90; Bar-
ton V. Thompson, 46 Towa, 30.
* Goi'don V. Parmlee, 15 Gray
(Mass.), 413 ; Ellis v. Burrell, 60 Me.
209 ; Burr v. Wilson, 32 Minn. 206 ;
Munson v. Atwood, 30 Conn. 102;
Bissell V. West, 35 Ind. 54 ; Weston
V. Gravlin, 49 Vt. 507.
5 State V. Whitson, 16 S. E. Rep.
333 ; HI N. C. 695.
" As to questions relating to human
affairs a knowledge of which is de-
rived from testimony, it is impossible
to have the kind of certainty created
by scientiiic demonstration. The
only certainty we can have is a
moral certainty, which depends upon
the confidence placed in the integrity
of witnesses and their capacity to
know the truth. If, for example,
facts not improbable are attested by
numerous witnesses who are credi-
ble, consistent, uncontradicted, and
who had every opportunity of know-
ing the truth, a reasonable or moral
certainty would be inspired by their
testimony. In such case a doubt
would be unreasonable, imaginary
or speculative, which it ought not to
be. It is not a doubt whether the
party may not possibly be innocent
in the face of strong proof of his
guilt, but a sincere doubt whether he
has been proved guilty, that is called
reasonable. And even where the
testimony is contradictory, so much
more credit may be due to one side
than the other and the same result
will be produced. On the other
hand, the opposing proofs may he so
nearly balanced that the jury may
justly doubt on which side lies the
truth. In such case the accused is
entitled to the benefit of the doubt
As certainty advances doubt recedes.
If one is reasonably certain he can-
not at the same tirne be reasonably
§ 6..]
INTEODUCTOET.
11
which a reason can be given;"' as a doubt that must satisfy
a reasonable mind after a full comparison and consideration
of the evidence ; ^ as " a doubt that has something to rest upOn, ■
and such as a sensible, honest-minded man would reasonably'
entertain;"' as a doubt growing out of the evidence and cir-
oumstances of the case,* having a foundation in reason;^ a
substantial doubt, and not a mere possibility of innocence ; ° and
as an honest, substantial misgiving generated by insufficiency
of proof.' But a mere whim, groundless surmise,* vague con-
jecture,' captious doubt or misgiving suggested by an ingen-
ious counsel, or arising from a merciful disposition towards
defendant or from sympathy for him or his family,'" is not a
reasonable doubt."
doubtful — that is have a reasonable
doubt of a fact. All that a jury can
be expected to do is to be reasonably
or morally certain of the fact which
they declare by their verdict." By
Cox, J., in United States v. Guiteau,
10 Fed. Eep. 164
1 Hodge V. State (Ala., 1893), 12 S.
Eep. 164; Cohen v. State, 50 Ala.
108.
2 Wood v. State (Fla., 1893), 13 S.
Rep. 539.
3 Fletcher v. State (Ga., 1898), 17 S.
K. Rep. 100.
4 Territory v. Chavez (N. M., 1893),
30 Pac. Rep. 908.
5 Conrad v. State, 31 N. R Rep. 805 ;
133 Ind. 254.
estate v. WeMs, 111 Mo. 533.
'' United States v. Newton, 52 Fed.
Eep. 375. See, also, Siberry v. State
(Ind., 1893), 38 N. E. Rep. 681 ; People
v. Kerm (Utah, 1893), 30 Pac. Eep.
988; Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 148;
Lyons v. People, 187 111. 603; Carroll
V. Same, 186 id. 456; Woodruff v.
State (Fla., 1893), 23 S. Eep. 653 ; Peo-
ple v. Pallister, 138 N. Y. 601.
"A reasonable doubt is such a
doubt as the term itself implies. It
is difficult to explain what a. reason-
able doubt is. It means a doubt that
has something to rest upcn; some
reason that it is based on; such a
doubt as would control you and you
would be governed by in your im-
portant business affairs. It means
such a doubt as a sensible, honest-
minded man would reasonably en-
tertain in an honest investigation
after truth; a doubt that would
arise from the evidence or the want
of evidence in the case. It does not
mean a mere vague conjecture or a
bare possibilityof the innocence of
the accused." Fletcher v. State (Ga.,
1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 100.
8 Welch V. State (Ala., 1893), 11 S.
Eep. 450.
9 Fletcher v. State (Ga., 1893), 17 S.
E. Rfip. 100.
10 United States v. Newton, 53 Fed.
Eep. 375.
11 Territory v. Baningan, 1 Dab. 483 ;
Spies V. People (Anarchist Case), 122
III. 8; Schusler v. State, 39 Ind. 394;
Horn V. State, 1 Kan. 42 ; Com. v.
Webster, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 395 ; Com.
V. Harman, 4 Pa. St. 369 ; Brotherton
v. People, 75 N. Y. 159; MoMeen v.
Com,, 114 Pa. St. 300; State v.- An-
derson, 86 Mo. 309; Bradshaw v.
State, 17 Neb. 147.
12
INTBODUCTOET.
[§6.
Where the prisoner pleads an affirmative defense as an
alibi, or denies that any crime has been committed, the bur-
den of proof is on him to show the fact. He need not, how-
ever, prove the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in
proving an alibi, the jury should acquit if the prisoner is able
to show by a preponderance of evidence that he was "else-
where " at or about the time the crime was committed, and
that he was at the place alleged such a length of time that he
could not have committed the crime with which he is charged.'
It is the duty of a jury to weigh the evidence, and it is not
for the court to place restrictions upon this power. They may,
where evidence is conflicting, reject that which is direct and
rely wholly upon that which is circumstantial.^ So it has been
held error, under such circumstances, for the court to instruct
them that the circumstances must not be tague, indefinite or
uncertain, but convincing and clearly defined.' So a jury is
not compelled to draw an inference that would necessarily
follow upon the facts proven, but may come to any reason-
able and probable conclusion justified by the evidence.^ So
1 State V. Reed. 62 Iowa, 40 ; Peo-
ple V. Pearsall, 50 Mich. 333 ; Stuart
V. People, 42 Mich, 255; Landis v.
State, 70 Ga. 651 ; Binns v. State, 46
Ind. 31 1; Watson v. Com., 95 Pa.
St 418; State v. Josey, 64 N. C.
56; State v. Watson, 7 S. C. 63;
Klein v. People, 1 13 IIL 596. In other
words. If the defendant by his evi-
dence of an alibi succeeds in creat-
ing a reasonable doubt that he com-
mitted the crime, then it is for the
state to overcome that doubt In no
case is the prisoner compelled to sat-
isfy the jury beyond a reasonable
doubt that he did not commit the
crime. Bennett v. State, 30 Tex. App.
341; People v. Fong, 64 Cal. 253;
State v. Sandars, 106 Mo. 188 ; State
V. Edwards, 109 Mo. 318. See post,
§ 240. The jury may be cautioned
that witnesses may be honestly mis-
taken as to times and places and
that an alibi may be easily fabri-
cated. People V. Wong (Cal.), 10
Pac. Rep. 375. But the law does not
regard evidence to prove an aK6i with
any greater degree of suspicion than
any other sort of defense. Albin v.
State, 63 Ind. 598; Line v. State, 51
id. 173 ; Spenser v. State, 50 Ala. 134
Though a presumption is created
against a prisoner when he is de-
tected in falsely swearing to an alibi
(Porter v. State, 55 Ala. 95 ; Com. v.
McMahon, 145 Pa. St 413), still it has
been held erroneous to charge that
an unsuccessful attempt to prove an
alibi is to be considered as a circum-
stance of great weight against the
accused. People v. Molaspina, 57
Cal. 628; Caffey v. State, 94 Ala. 76.
a Bowie V. Maddox, 29 Ga. 285;
Deland v. Dixou Nat Bank, 111 111.
327.
3 State V. Allen, 103 N. C. 433; Mc-
Clesky v. State (Tex., 1892), 13 S. W.
Rep. 997. .
< 127 111. 507.
§ 6.] INTEODUCTOET. 13
to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence it has been
held that each fact leading up to the inference drawn must be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the facts thus proven
should be consistent with each other and with the, guilt of the
person accused.'
On the other hand, many cases hold, and this perhaps is the
better rule, that the jury need not be satisfied beyond a rea-
sonable doubt of the truth of every fact alleged, if .upon the
whole evidence they are satisfied of the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt.^
iGallaher v. State, 38 Tex. App. Rep. 905; Weaver v. People, 133111.
247; Rains v. State, 88 Ala. 91; 536 ; Siebert v. People (111., 1893), 33
Gravesv.People (Colo., 1893), 33 Pao. N. E. Rep. 431; Harnish v. People
Rep. 63. See Timmerman v. Ten, 17 (III., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 677 ; Jamison
Pac. Rep. 634 ; Cotton v. State, 87 Ala. v. People (111., 1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 468 ;
75 ; Coleman v. State, 87 id. 14. Timmerman v. Ter., 17 Pac. Rep.
estate V. Wells, 111 Mo. 633; 634; State v. Crane, 15 S. E. Rep.
Faulkner v. Ter. (N. M., 1893), 30 Pac 331 ; 110 N. C. 530.
CHAPTER I.
RELEVANCY AND PROVINCE OF JUDGE AND JURY.
§ 7. Relevancy of evidence.
8. Collateral facts, how far admis-
sible.
9. Evidence of intention, motive,
good faith, etc., when rele-
vant
i 10. Collateral facts bearing on char-
acter.
11. Province of judge and jury.
13. Blended questions of law and
fact
13. Preliminary facts bearing on
admissibility.
§ 7. Relevancy of evidence. — The word " relevant " means
that the fact to which it is applied is so related to another
fact that; according to the common course of events, either,
by itself or in connection with other facts, proves or renders
probable the existence or non-existence, past, present or future,
of the other.^
The logical connection of the fact proven with the fact in
issue constitutes the basis for all rules bearing upon relevancy ;
and while it is important to appropriate some particular
word to point out this principle, it is useful to endeavor to
differentiate certain terms frequently but erroneously regarded
as synonymous with it.
Thus the terms "competent" and "admissible,"^ "proper"
and "competent,"' "admissible" or "material" and "rele-
vant," are used interchangeably, little, if any, distinction being
made in their various shades of meaning.
The word "competent" is correctly used in the sense of
" qualified," to signify the capacity of a person as a witness or
his right to testify. On the other hand, " proper " is applicable
to the character of evidence, where evidence of a particular
description is necessary to prove certain kinds of facts.
"Material" is used in a double sense. It may express the
amount of weight to be given to a fact approximating to rele-
1 Stephen's Digest
Preliminary Chapter,
of Evidence, 2 "West v. Bank, 20 Hun, 408.
3 Blake v. People, 73 N, Y. 58(
§ 7.] .EELEVANCT AND PEOVINCE OF JDDGE AND JUEY. 15
vant m meaning, or it may be that certain facts in issue are
material, i. e., necessary to be proved.^
" Admissible," as commonly used, has required a rather loose
and fluctuating meaning, in the majority of instances signify-
ing "receivable" merely.
The principle of the relevancy of evidence is stated by
Mr. Greenleaf in his first rule, "that evidence offered must
correspond with the material and necessary allegations of the
pleadings and be confined to the point in issue." ^
This rule, by dispensing with proof of immaterial aver-
ments, being well designed to facilitate the labors of the jury
and render litigation less expensive, should be strictly ad-
hered to.'
In order to possess the characteristic of relevancy a fact
need not always have a direct bearing upon the facts in issue ;
but it will be relevant though it only tends to prove the latter
by association with others which go to form the proof re-
quired.*
So evidence is admissible which, though apparently not
bearing directly on the facts in issue, yet, because it points
1 Lindsay v. People, 63 N. Y. 143. Sohuchardt v. Aliens, 1 Wall. (U. S.)
21 Greenl. on Evid., § 51. 859; Willoughby v. Dewey, 54 111.
» Montgomery Co. V. Bridge Co.", 266; Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. S. 481;
110 Pa. St. 54; Ferrari v. Murray, Hilton v. Railroad Co. .(Ala., 1893), 13
153 Mass.^ 496; Ellen v. Lewison, S. Rep. 376; Grantier v. Austin, 66
88 Cal. 258 ; Kennedy v. Currie, 8 Hun, 157 ; Columbus, etc. Co. v.
Wash. St. 443 ; McGrew v. M. Pac. Semmes, 27 Ga. 383 ; Tucker v. Peas-
E. Co. (Mo., 1893), 19 S. W. Rep. 53; lee, 36 N. H. 157; Huntington v. At-
Michigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 148 trill, 118 N. Y. 865 ; Johnson v. State,
U. S. 293 ; Gulf, etc. Co. v. Hepner, 18 Tex. App. 385 ; West v. State, 76
88 Tex. 70; 18 S. W. Rep. 441; Mc- Ala. 98; Overman v. State, 49 Ark.
Dermott v. Falls Co. (Iowa, 1892), 53 364; Davis v. State, 74 Ga. 869; Watt
N. W. Rep. 181 ; Weaver v. Shipley, v. People (III.), 18 N. E. Rep. 340 ;
137 Ind. 526 ; Clow v. Brown (Ind., Sohulser v. Slate, 29 Ind. 894 ; Com.
I), 81 N. E. Rep. 361 ; Branson v. v. Robinson, 146 Mass. 571 ; State v.
Kitcheninan, 148 Pa. St. 541 ; 24 Atl. Johnson, 37 Minn. 493 ; Casey
Rep. 641: Fuivre v. Daley, 98 Cal. State, 20 Neb. 138 ; State v. Harrison,
663; N. Chic. Ry. Co. v. Cotton, 140 5 Jones' (N. C.) L. 115; Henry v.
III. 486 ; 39 N. E. Rep. 899 ; Freeman State, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 324 ; Trues-
V. Fogg, 83 Me, 408. dell v. Hoyle, 39 111. App. 533 ; Dean
iBohrer v. Sturapf, SV 111. App. v. Cora., 83 Gratt. (Va.) 913; Leon-
139 ; Sanders v. Stokes, 30 Ala. 433 ; ard v. Territory, 3 Wash. Ter, 381.
1() EELEVANCT AND PROVINCE OF JUDGE AND JUEY. [§ 7.
out the manner in which the case is being conducted by either
party, is relevant as tending to prove or disprove the truth or
probability of the facts in issue.
No legal presumption generally arises from the mere non-
production of certain witnesses.' But evidence that a wit-
ness is living who has not been produced,^ or that a deposition
which has been obtained is not offered,' is relevant on behalf
of either party to prove that this testimony, if offered, would
have been adverse to the other. But in any case the infer-
ence is for the jury; while such evidence is only relevant if,
in the opinion of the judge, such an inference may with fair-
ness be drawn ^ by reasonable men.
The relevancy of evidence need not be shown when it is
offered ' if it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the court
that counsel wnll subsequently produce other evidence which
will render it relevant.' So if evidence is rejected because
irrelevant, and proof is afterwards given showing its relevancy,
it may again be offered.'
Evidence which would be relevant in rebuttal may, in the
discretion of the court, be admitted in chief.* But an offer of
evidence must be so explicit that the court may see whether
or not it is relevant.'
> Showman t. Lee, 86 Mich. 656; Rep, 1037; Tarns t. BuIIix, 35 Pa.
Com. V. Mahan, 143 Pa. St. 413. St 308 ; Comstock v. Smith, 20 Mich.
2 Lynch v. Peabody, 137 Mass. 93. 338.
ETidence to explain the absence of a ' Jones v. St Louis, etc. Co. (Ark.,
witness is always relevant under 1890), 18 S. W. Rep. 416. But in
such circumstances. Richmond, etc prosecutions for crime it is generally
Co. V. Garner (Ga., 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. required that the corpus dehcii should
110; StafFords v. Morning Jourpal, be shown first People v. Millard, 53
68 Hun, 467 ; Sa Pac. R. Co. v. Rauh Mich. 63.
1 C. C. A. 416. ' s Easley v. M. Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.,
3 Learned v. Hall, 133 Mass. 417. 1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 1073 ; Lamance v.
4 See § 25. Byrnes. 17 Nev. 197 ; Kansas City R.
6 Harris v. Holmes, 80 Vt 853. Co. v. McDonald, 51 Fed. Rep. 178;
8 Harris v. Holmes, 30 Vt 853 ; Cashman v. Harrison, 90 Cal. 397.
Com. V. Dam, 107 Mass. 210; Consaul "Wolford v. Farnham, 47 Minn.
V. Sheldon, 35 Neb. 847 ; Lee Silv. Co. 95 ; Lanter v. Simpson, 3 Ind. App
v.Englebach (Colo., 1893), 31 Pac. Rep. 293; Alexander v. Thompson, 42
771 ; Morris v. Morton's Ex'rs (Kan., Minn. 498 ; Idaho, etc. Co. v. Brad-
1893), 30 S. W. Rep, 287; McClene- bury, 133" U. S. 509; Kennedy v.
ghan V. Reid (Neb., 1893), 51 N. W, Currie, 3 Wash. St 443.
§ 8.] EELEVANCT AND PEOVINCE OE JUDGE AND JUKT. 17
§8. Collateral facts, how far admissible. — This rule of
relevancy does not permit the introduction of wholly collat-
eral facts which are not part of the same transaction and
throw no light upon the truth or even the probability of the
fact in issue, but which, if they were introduced in evidence,
would only distract and confuse the minds of the members of
the jury by withdrawing their attention from the main point
in issue.^
The question whether a fact is or is not too remote, and
consequently Irrelevant, is a preliminary question for the
judge, and on this subject no rule can be laid down further
than the very general one which in practice is of little value and
which is implied in the definition of the word relevant itself.
If the collateral fact introduces or will explain a fact in
issue^ or a relevant fact, or will rebut or support any infer-
ence which ma.y be drawn by the jury from a fact which is in
issue or from a relevant fact, it is admissible.' In every case
great care is demanded of the judge, that by the employment
of a wise discrimination he may admit as relevant all evi-
dence which sheds any light upon the issue, though weak and
uncertain, rejecting that which by its remoteness cannot be
connected with the facts.* Thus, where the value of land is
involved, evidence of recent sales of land under similar con-
ditions in the neighborhood is relevant to show the value
of the land in question.' Evidence to show that the sales of
land which have been proved were made under different cir-
' 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 53. Cotcon, 140 111. 480 ; 39 N. E. Eep.
2 Tiuesdale v. Hoyle, 39 III. App. 899. If the relevancy of a fact de-
533 ; Clarke v. Van Court, 51 Neb. 756. pends upon the proof of another fact
8 Butler Y. Cornell (111., 1893), 85 N. upon which the evidence is contra-
E. Eep. 767 ; Wallace v. Kennedy, dictory, the proper course ia to sub-
47 N. J. L. 246; Reeve v. Dennett, mit the proof of both facts to the
145 Mass. 33; Collins v. Glass, 46 jury. Day v. Sharp, 4 Whart. 339.
Mo. App. 397. 5 Huntington v. Attrill, 118 N. Y. '
4 Davis V. Getchell, 33 Neb. 793; 365; Miller v. Windsor W. Co., 30 W.
Cadwallader v. Zeh, 14 S. Ct 388 N. C. 85; Prov. etc. Co. v. Worces-
(U. S., 1894) ; Bransen v. Kitohenman, ter, 39 N. E. Eep. 56 ; 155 Mass. 35 ;
148 Pa, St 541 ; 34 Atl. Eep. 61 ; Mc- Chicago, etc. Co. v. Emery (Kan.,
CuUoch v. Dobson, 30 N. E. Eep. 641 ; 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 631 ; Cross v. Wil-
133 N. Y. 114; Faivre v. Daily, 93 kins, 43 N. H 333; Sanford v. Peck
CaL 664; Lanter v. Simpson, 3 Ind. (Conn., 1894), 37 Atl. Eep. 1057; Melr
App. 373; North Chi. S. B. Cp. v. vin v. BuUard, 35,Vt. 368; Atchison
2
18 EELEVANCY AND PHOVINCE OF JUDGE AND JUEY. [§ 8.
cumstances is then relevant. Thus the land-owner whose
property is to be taken in condemnation proceedings may
show that his land is of a superior quality.^ So, also, if the
situation and condition of the land sold, which is used as a
standard of comparison, be not substantially identical with
the land in dispute, or if the sales were not recent in point of
time, it may become a question for the exercise of judicial
discretion whether such evidence should not be rejected as re-
mote and hence irrelevant.^
Under the rule above pointed out, evidence of collateral
facts is sometimes held to be admissible where the fact in
"issue is the character of the result of a certain continued
course of action which it is alleged evinces such a lack of care
or skill on the part of the actor as to constitute negligence.
So where the question hinges upon the proper performance of
ofBcial or private duty in providing or caring for public struct-
ures or private buildings, or for machinery, or any material
or mechanical device requiring the exercise of personal care
and diligence, evidence of its condition, or of accidents which
occurred in its use, prior to the time when the fact in issue
occurred, is admissible.' The decisions, however, are not har-
monious on this point, and the cases in which such evidence
has been excluded as irrelevant are extremely numerous.^
Where the issue involves negligence caused by 'the alleged
defective condition of a highway, evidence showing its con-
R. R Co. V. Harper, 19 Kan. 529; McCullough v. Dobson, 133 N. Y.
Howe V. Howard, 33 N. E. Rep. 538; 114; House v. Metoalf, 37 Conn. 682;
Travis v. Pierson, 43 111. App. 479. Glasier v. Hebron, 63 Hun, 187 ;
1 Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Eeq- Toledo, etc. Co. v. Milligan, 3 Ind.
ery (Kan., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 631. App. 578 ; Chicago v. Powers, 43 111.
2 May V. Boston (Mass., 1893), 33 169 ; Presly v. Grand T. Ry. Co. (N. H.,
N. E. Rep. 902 ; Packard v. Bergen 1893), 23 Atl. Rep. 554 ; Indianapolis
Neck R. Co., 54 N. J. L. 533 ; Laing Ry. v. Boetcher, 131 Ind. 82 ; 28 N. E.
V. United N. J. R & Can. Co., 54 id. Rep. 551 ; Augusta v. Hafers, 61 Ga.
576 ; Seattle, etc. Co. v. Gilchrist, 4 48 ; Topeka v. Sherwood, 39 Kan.
Wash. St. 509. 690; Goshen v. England, 119 Ind.
3 Legg V. Bloomington, 40 111. App. 368 ; Magee v. Troy, 1 N. Y. S. 24 ;
185 ; Mixter Coal Co. v. Smith, 152 Masters v. Troy, 50 Hun, 485.
Pa. Sfe 395 ; Chicago, etc. Co. v. i Fordyce v. Withers, 1 Tex. Civ.
Lewis (111., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 960 ; App. 540 ; Baxter v. Doe, 143 Mass.
Ohio Val. Ry. Co. v. Watson's Adm'r 558 ; Early v. Lake Shore, etc. Co., 80
(Ky., 1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 344; Dar- Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 163; Smith v.
ling V. Westmoreland, 53 N. H. 401 ; Railroad Co., 25 id. 546; Wise v.
§ 8.] EELKVANOY AND PEOVINOE OF JUDGE AND JDET. 19
dition, and the existence of defects in it at a short distance
from the place in issue/ or evidence which shows the condi-
tion of the road at the point where the accident occurred a
short time before or after, is relevant.^ The test of relevancy
in all such cases, and the principle upon which the decisions
may perhaps be reconciled, is the proximity in time or place
of the facts testified to, whether they relate to the condition of
the highway or other object causing damage or to repairs to
it. If the evidence, whether before or after, is too remote in
point of time or place, it should be rejected.' And evidence
that defendant, after the accident, repaired the place where
plaintiff was injured is generally irrelevant and inadmissible.^
Upon the question whether, in an action alleging the negli-
gence of defendant, evidence that he is a man of careful and
prudent demeanor in that line of activity in which he is al-
leged to have been negligent is admissible, the authorities are
divided. By some of the cases it is held that evidence is rele-
vant to show that he is competent and skilful and that no
similar accident had ever before happened.* The contrary
proposition has also been held.*
Ackerman, 51 Md. 937 ; 26 Atl. Rep. 3 Skattowe v. Railway Co., 33 Oreg.
424 ; Hudson v. Chicago Ry. Co., 59 430 ; 30 Pao. Rep. 322 ; Maiianey v.
Iowa, 581 ; Hatt v. Nay, 144 Mass. 186 ; Railway Co., 108 Mo. 191 ; 18 S. W.
North Chicago, etc. Co. v. Hudson, Rep. 895; Walker v. Westfield, 39
44 111. App. 60 ; State v. Raymond, Vt. 346 ; White v. Graves, 107 Mass.
39 Pac. Rep. 733. Where negligence 335 ; Sherman v. Kortright, 53 Barb,
is alleged, evidence that no accident (N. Y.) 367.
of the nature of that alleged has ever * Schulte v. Cunningham, 14 Daly,
before occurred is irrelevant. Lewis 404 ; Hodges v. Percival, 153 111. 53 ;
V. Smith, 107 Mass. 334. 33 N. E. Rep. 433 ; Lang v. Sanger,
1 Woodcock V. Worcester, 138 Mass. 76 Wis. 71; 44 N. W. Rep. 1085;
368 ; Bailey v. Trumbull, 31 Conn. Terre Haute R Co. v. Clem, 133 Ind.
581 ; Propson v. Leathern, 80 Wis. 15 ; 33 N. E. Rep. 965.
608 ; Leonard v. So. t. Ry. Co., 31 5 Toledo, St. L. etc. Co. v. Bailey
Oreg. 555; Haley v. Jump River L. (111., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 1089; Intei-
Co. (Wis., 1893), 51 N. W. Rep. 321. national, etc. Co. v. Kuehn (Tex.,
Contra, Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 58 ; Railway Co. v.
(Ky., 1893), 17 S. W. Rep. 1025 ; For- Selby, 47 Ind. 471 ; Chicago, etc. Co.
dyce V. Chaney (Texas, 1893), 21 v. Spelker (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep.
S. W. Rep. 181 ; Thompson v. Rail- 380.
road Co., 91 Mich. 355 ; 57 N. W. Rep. " Ft Worth, etc. Co. v. Thompson
995. (Tex., 1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 137 ; Chris-
2 Salladay v. Bodgeville (Wia, 1893), tensen v. Union Trunk Line (Wash ,
55 N. W. Rep. 696. 1893), 33 Fac. Rep. 1018.
20
EELEVANOT AND PKOVINCE OF JUDGE AND JUEY.
[§9.
So, generally, collateral facts are relevant where they show
the situation or condition of the parties,' or identify them,^
or explain the reason or motive that led to a relevant act,'
fix the time or place of a relevant action* or show an oppor-
tunity for its commission.^
§ 9. Evidence of intention, motive, good faith, etc., when
relevant. — Evidence of facts which are seemingly collateral,
and which at first glance appear to have no relevancy to the
issue or direct connection with it, is receivable in many cases
where the party's intent, knowledge or good faith is a mate-
rial element of a transaction which is proved aliunde.^ Thus,
proof of the possession or of the utterance of forged docu-
ments at any time is relevant on the trial of one accused of
forgery for the purpose of showing the guilty knowledge or
intent of the accused.'
1 Woodward v. Buchanan, 5 Q. B.
285 ; Mobile, etc. Co. v. Worthington
(Ala., 1893), 10 S. Eep. 839; Schu-
man v. Expert (Mich., 1893), 51 N.
W. Eep. 198; Berry v. Kowatsky
(Cal., 1893), 30 Pac. Rep. 202 ; Long
V. Straus (Ind., 1890), 24 N. E. Rep.
664 ; Bolu-sr v. Stump, 31 111. App.
1.39; Com. v. Campbell, 155 Mass.
127.
2 James v. Ford, 9 N. Y. S. 1^7;
Edmansen v, Andrews, 35 IlL App.
233 ; McLane v. State, 30 Tex. App.
482; Com. v. Campbell, 155 Mass.
127.
3 Bruner v. Wade (Iowa, 1892), 51
N. W. Rep. 251 ; Weinberg v. Kram,
17 N. Y. S. 535 ; Miller v. State, 68
Miss. 231 ; Johnson v. State, 29 Tex.
App. 150 ; State v. Hulse, 106 Mo. 41 ;
State V. Lentz, 45 Minn. 377. " The
possibility of error goes to the weight
of evidence and is not a ground for
rejecting it The spirit of the law
permits a resort to every reasonable
sourc4 of information upon a dis-
puted question of fact. Unless ex-
cluded by some positive exception,
everything relative to the issue is ad-
missible, and this is extended to every
hypothesis pertinent to the issue.''
Bell V. Brewster, 44 Ohio St. 696, 697.
■"Rollins V. Clement, 25 S. C. 601;
Martin v. Victor, etc. Co., 19 Nev.
180; Orr Water Ditch, etc. Co. v.
Jones, 19 Nev. 60; Beakes v. Da
Cunla, 13 N. Y..S. 551 ; 58 Hun, 609;
27 N. R Rep. 351. Evidence of
events or acts which are clearly re-
membered, or which are notorious,
is always relevant to fix the date of
a relevant fact which has been for-
gotten. Ritter v. First Nat Bank, 30
Mo. App. 652.
5 State V. Stubbs (N. C, 1892), 13 S.
E. Eep. 90 ; Engle v. Smith (Mich.,
1892), 46 N. W. Rep. 21 ; Dowell v.
Guthrie, 99 Mo. 653 ; McCoy v. Tucks,
121 Ind. 292 ; Tabor v. N. Y. E. E.
Co., 58 N. Y. Super. Ct 579; McCul-
loch v. Dobson, 133 N. Y. 114; State
V. Lentz, 45 Minn. 177.
6 See § 8.
' State V. Minton (Mo., 1893), 22 S.
W. Rep. 808 ; Bridge v. Eggleston,
14 Mass. 245; Com. v. White, 145
Mass. 392; Bottomley v. United
States, 1 Story, 143, 144 ; Devere v.
State, 5 Ohio Cir. Ct 509 ; Smith v.
State (Fla., 1893), 10 S. Eep. 894;
§9-]
EKLEVANCY AND PEOVINCK OF JUDGE AND JURY.
21
It may be well to remark in this place that the general rule
is that facts Avhich are distinct from the fact in issue, but
which may resemble it in character, are not relevant to prove
or show the probability of the fact in issue. So no one is
presamed to be guilty of crime because he has committed
similar thougli distinct crimes at some other time.'
In civil cases the rule is often relaxed to let in seemingly
irrelevant facts to strengthen the probability ^ of some doubt-
ful fact by showing- to the jury that the doubtful fact alleged
might have happened, because under circumstances somewhai
similar, if not identical, a similar fact actually did happen.'
In criminal cases the rule excluding evidence of transac-
tions not specifically connected with the fact in issue is very
strictly observed. Still it has been held that evidence of other
distinct crimes is relevant, not for the purpose of proving di-
rectly the act for which the prisoner is on trial, but, that act
or transaction being shown by other evidence, evidence of a
similar crime will be received as showing or tending to show
that the act was done with a criminal intent on the part of
the accused.*
Com. V. Russell (Mass., 1893), 30 N.
E. Rep. 763. Evidence that defend-
ant was seen to practice writing the
name forged is also relevant. Insur-
ance Co. V. Phila. Ry. Co., 11 Pa. Co.
Ct. Rep. 483.
1 People V. O'Brien, 96 Cal. 171;
Com. V. Saulsbury, 152 Pa. St. 554 ;
Nixon V. State, 31 Tex. Crim. App.
205; People v. Drake, 65 Hun, 331;
State V. Bronson, 49 Kan. 758 ; State
V. Sterrett, 71 Iowa, 386. Cf. State v.
Martin, 74 Mo. 547 ; People v. Rogers,
71 Cal. 565 ; Kernan v. State, 65 Md.
253. " Proof of a general disposition
to do a thing is not proof of that
thing. Thus, proof of a habit of
gambling when drunk is not proof
that the person gambled when drunk
on a ■particular day. Nor will proof
of a habit of loaning money at
usurious interest prove that a loan
was made in a particular instance."
Thompson v. Bowie, 4 Wall. 471.
2 "If the evidence relates to the
transaction under consideration, or is
connected with it and is not too re-
mote, it is competent. It is relevant
to put in evidence any circumstance
that tends to make the proposition at
issue more or less improbable." Fee
V. Taylor, 88 Ky. 364.
SDwyer v. Bassett, 1 Tex. Civ. App.
513. Contra, Hartman v. Evans
(W. Va., 1894), 18 S. E. Rep. 810;
Palmer v. Hamilton (Ky., 1894), 24
S. W. Rep. 613.
*Copperman v. People, 56 N. Y.
591; People v. Mead, 50 Mich. 228;
State V. Myers, 83 Mo. 558 ; People
V. Gibbs, 93 N. Y. 473; Kramer v.
Com., 87 Pa. St. 299; State v. Stice
(Iowa, 1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 17 ; Card
V. State, 109 Ind. 430 ; Brown v. State,
26 Ohio St. 176 ; State v. Porter (La.,
1893), 12 S. Rep. 832 ; State v. Place,
32 Pac. Rep. 736; 5 Wash. St. 773;
Courtney v. State (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E.
22
EELEVANOY AND FEOVINCE OF JUDGE AND JUEY.
[§9-
The fact of adultery can seldom be proven by direct evi-
dence. For this reason proof of acts of adultery prior or
subsequent to the act charged,' or that the accused associated
with prostitutes,^ is admissible to show the adulterous dis-
position anfi opportunity to commit the offense.'
If the intent or good faith of a person is in issue in a civil
action, similar acts to those which are alleged may be proven
to show the mental state or intention — as, for example, in
cases of fraudulent misrepresentations.^
The practice of permitting proof of acts or crimes of a
similar nature tending to prove knowledge or intention is
doubtless partly due to the rule of the common law by which
the party was debarred, because of interest, from testifying
in his own behalf. This rule being now almost universally
abrogated, a party may be called to testify to bis intention '
in doing a particular act, and such evidence, though perhaps
suspicious because of interest, is relevant and may be taken
by the jury for what it is worth.'
Eep. 335; Mason v. State, 20 S. W.
Rep. 564; 31 Tex. Crim. App. 306;
Strong V. State (Tex., 1893), 23 S. W.
Eep. 680 ; State v. Winton (Mo., 1893),
38 S. W. Rep. 808; State v. Crawford
(S. C, 1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 799; Com.
V. Shepherd, 2 Pa. Dist Rep. 845;
Smith V. State, 39 F]a. 108 ; Com. v.
Russell, 136 Mass. 196. "Where guilty
knowledge is an ingredient of a
crime, evidence of the commission of
other kindred offenses about the same
time is admissible as tending to prove
that ingredient Many cases of fraud
require the application of the same
principle, as fraud involves intent,
and intent can be deduced only from
a variety of circumstances. Collat-
eral facts, each insufficient in itself,
whose joint operation tends to sup-
port the charge or to disprove it, are
then receivable." United States v.
Clapboards, 4 Cliff. 303-5.
1 Garner v. State, 38 Fla. 113.
'■! Ciocci V. Ciocci, 29 L. T. Pr. & M.
60.
3 State V. Henderson (Iowa, 1893),
50 N. W. Eep. 758 ; Burnett v. State,
33 S. W. Rep. 47 ; Owens v. State, 10
S. Rep. 669; 94 Ala. 97; Thayer v.
Thayer, 101 Mass. Ill ; Com. v. Cur-
tis, 97 Mass. 574.
* Continental Ins. Co. v. Insurance
Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 884; Kelley v.
Owens (Cal., 1893), 80 Pac. Rep. 596 ;
McCasker v. Enright, 64 Vt 488;
James v.Work, 34 N. Y. S. 147 ; Dwyer
v. Bassett, 21 S. W. Rep. 621 ; 1 Tex.
Civ. App. 513 ; Lawlor v. Fritcher, 54
Hun, 586. Contra, McKay v. Rus-
sell, 3 Wash. St. 378. The acts must,
it seems, be recent Wright v.
Wright 139 Mass. 177.
5 People v. Baker, 96 N. Y. 340;
White V. State, 53 Ind. 595. A wit^
ness cannot be permitted to testify
that another person intended to do a
certain act Kenyon v. Luther, 4 N.
Y. S. 498 ; 10 id. 951 ; Cihak v. Kleke,
117 111. 643.
fiGardom v. Woodward, 44 Kan.
758; Stearns v. Gosselin, 68 Vt 38;
§ 9.], KELEVANOY AND PROVINCE OF JUDGE AND JITET. 23
The competency of the party as a witness has, on the other
hand, rendered proof of surrounding circumstances to show
knowledge, motive or intention by inference much more im-
portant than formerly, in view of the tendency of an interested
party to color the facts in his own favor. Evidence of circum-
stances is relevant in every instance to show the presence of a
motive or of good or bad faith, or to prove that a party made
preparations, i. e., intended to do any act which is itself rele-
vant.' So in prosecutions for crime the purchase or collecting of
murderous instruments or burglarious tools, the going to the
place of the crime, the disguising of oneself, and on a trial for
ai'son the prior insurance of the property, are relevant facts.^
So evidence of the behavior of a party subsequent to an act is
relevant to show that his behavior is such as would be natural
under the supposition that the act had been committed.' Thus,
in a criminal trial, evidence that the accused bad attempted
to escape,* or was in possession of tools to effect an escape,'
or was living under an assumed name,' or that he told a false-
hood in denying the crime,' is relevant. But the mere fact
that defendant left the county is not relevant unless it appears
that he did so to avoid arrest.' Nor can it be shown that de-
fendant offered to surrender himself to the authorities.'
In the trial of an indictment for murder the prosecution
may introduce evidence of the former altercations, previous
threats and menacing declarations of the prisoner against the
deceased, to show the former's malice, or, if long prior to the
killing, to show his premeditation — such evidence being rele-
Jefiferds v. Alvord, 151 Mass. 95; ' Banfleld v. Whipple, 10 Allen, 39 ;
Wilson V. Clark (Ind., 1892), 37 N. B. Furnis v. Durgin, 119 Mass. 500.
Rep. 310. < State v. Palmer, 65 N. H. 316 ;
> State V. Brown, 75 Me. 456; Ores- Baker v. Com. (Ky., 1893), 17 S. W.
well V. State, 14 Tex. App. 1 ; Aaron Eep. 635 ; Ryan v. State, 84 Wis. 368 ;
V. State, 81 Ga. 167 ; Ten Eyck v. Wit- Com. v. McMahon, 145 Pa, St. 413.
beck, 69 Hun, 450; McCarthy v. » State v. Duncan (Mo., 1893), 23
Gallegher, 4 Misc. Rep. 188 ; Com. v. S. W. Eep. 699.
Hudson, 97 Mass. 565; Kelsoe v. estate v. Whitson, 111 N. C. 695.
State, 47 Ala. 573 ; Garber v. State, 4 ' State v. Bradley, 64 Vt. 466.
Cold. (Tenn.) 161, 165; Foster v. estate v. Marshall (Mo., 1893), 23
Dickinson, 64 Vt 233; 24 Atl. Rep. S. W. Rep. 45.
253. 9 State v. Johnston, 94 Ala. 35 ; Peo-
sWhart Cr. Ev., §753. pie v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. (N. Y.)
518 (refusal to escape irrelevant).
24
EELEVANCY AND PEOVINCE OF JUDGE AND JUET. [§ 10.
vant to show the prisoner's mental state.' And in a prosecution
for homicide, evidence that after the homicide the accused
was nervous, excited^ or preoccupied,' or was silent when
accused of the crime,* or manifested a lack of feeling at the
death of deceased where great sorrow would naturally be
expected,' is relevant.
§ 10. Collateral facts bearing on character. — Evidence of
the general character or reputation of the parties is always
irrelevant in civil causes, except in cases where general char-
acter is involved in the issue on account of the peculiar nature
of the cause of action." Even where the character for chastity
of a wife or daughter is concerned, in an action brought to
recover for her seduction, evidence of her general moral
character is inadmissible, though evidence of facts tending to
prove her previous chastity or lack thereof is relevant,^
provided they occurred prior to the offense charged.^ In a
1 Harrison v. State, 79 Ala. 29 ; State
V. Bradley, 64 Vt. 466; Hardy v.
State, 31 Tex. C. Rep. 289 ; Pitman v.
State, 23 Ark. 354; State v. Hoyt,
47 Conn. 518 ; State v. Green, 1 Hou8t.
Cr. Cas. (Del.) 217; Dixon v. State, 18
Fla 636; Everett v. State, 63 Ga. 65;
State V. Walsh, 44 La. Ann. ;,1133;
Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550 ; State
V. McCahill, 73 Iowa, 111 ; Eeily v.
Com. (Ky., 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 322;
State V. Birdwell, 36 La. Ann. .859 ;
Eiggs V. State, 30'Miss. 635; State v.
Partlow, 90 Mo. 608 ; State v. Hymer,
15 Nev. 49; Pittman v. State (Ga.,
1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 856 ; State v. Rash,
13 Ired. (N. C.) L. 383; Minims v.
State, 16 Ohio St. 231 ; Hopkins v.
Com., 50 Pa. St. 9 ; May v. State (Ga.,
1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 108 ; Wilson v.
State, 30 Fla, 234 ; Benedict v. State,
14 Wis, 433; People v. Curtis, 52
Mich. 616; State v. Downs, 91 Mo.
19 ; State V. Taylor, 44 La. Ann. 783 ;
11 S. Rep. 133; Hall v. State, 31 Tex.
C. Rep. 565.
2 State V. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1;
Miller v. State, 18 Tex. 232.
'Noftsinger v. State, 7 Tex. App.
301.
estate V. Reed, 63 Me. 129.
6 Greenfield v. People, 85 N. Y. 75.
6 Fowler v. Insurance Co., 6 Cowen,
673, 675 ; Halley v. Gregg (Iowa, 1891),
48 N. W. Rep. 974; Dudley v. Mc-
Cluer, 65 Mo. 341 ; Home Lumber
Co. V. Hartman, 45 Mo. App. 647;
McCarty v. Leary, 118 Mass. 509;
Scruggs V. State, 15 S. W. Rep. 1074 f
90 Tenn. 81 ; Goldsmith v. Picard, 27
Ala. 142 ; Porter v. Seller, 33 Pa. St.
424 ; Corning v. Corning, 6 N. Y. 97 ;
Thompson v. Brown, 4 Wall. 471;
Leary v. Leary, 18 Ga. 696 ; Wright
V. McKee, 37 Vt. 161. See 1 Greenl.
on Evid., § 54.
estate V. Curran, 51 Iowa, 112;
Badder v. Kiefer, 91 Mich. 611; 53
N, W. Rep. 60 ; State v. Eckler, 106
Mo. 585; Sho waiter v. Bergman, 33
N. E. Rep. 686.
8 Clifton V. Granger (Iowa, 1893),
53 N. W. Rep. 816 ; Hallock v. Kinney
(Mich., 1893), 51 N. W. Rep. 706.
Evidence of plaintiff's adultery with
others than defendant is irrelevant.
Morris v. State, 31 Tex. App. 597.
§ 10.] EELEVANOT AND PEOVINCE OF JUDGE AND JUEY. 25
criminal prosecution for rape or for an indecent assault, the
prior chastity of the prosecuting witness is a material fact, and
evidence of previous acts of unchastity, committed with the
accused but with no other man, is relevant.' But evidence
that the prosecuting witness had a bad reputation for chastity
or was unchaste is irrelevant.^
"Whether or not an allegation of fraud in a civil action to
recover damages for a tort puts the character of a party in
issue to the extent that general evidence of good character is
relevant depends more upon the nature of the action than
upon the character or form of the charge of fraud. It was
formerly held that where a person is charged with construct-
ive fraud, evidence of his good character is relevant to
rebut the presumption.' This rule is limited to cases where
intention is sought to be proven circumstantially, and does
not apply where the allegation of fraud is merely formal, or,
in other words, where from the nature of the action reputa-
tion is not actually and necessarily drawn in issue.* If the
plaintiff bases his cause of action upon an injury to his general
reputation or character, as he does in an action to recover
damages for malicious prosecution or false imprisonment, or
in an action of slander or libel, his reputation becomes mate-
rial in view of the alleged damage it has received. Then evi-
dence is relevant that plaintiff's general reputation was bad
prior to the alleged injury., and this fact, if proved, should be
considered by the jury in mitigation of damages. It is very
unlikely that a man or woman of bad reputation would re-
ceive the same injury as one of an unblemished life and high
moral standing.^ "Where a peculiar trait of character is in
1 State V. Cassidy (Iowa, 1893), 53 456. See, contra, Gough v. St. John,
N. W. Rep. 1 ; Stats v. Patrick (Mo,, 16 Wend. 646 ; Pratt v. Andrew, 4
1893), 17 & W. Eep. 666 ; O'Blenis v. N. Y. 493. Cf. Porter v. Seller, 23
State, 47' N. J. L. 379 ; Com. v. Ken- Pa. St. 324.
dall, 113 Mass. 210. * Nash v. Gllkerson, 5 S. & R 353 ;
2Fry V. Com., 82Va. 834; Linecuna Anderson v. Long, 10 id. 55; Porter
V. State, 29 Tex. App. 338 ; People v. v. Seller, 33 Pa. St. 484 ; Zitzer v.
McLean, 71 Mich. 309. Merkel, 34 Pa. St. 408 ; Oivens v.
3 1 Greenl. on Evid., §g 54, 55, citing Bradley, 3 Bibb, 193; Gregory v.
Euan V. Perry, 3 Caines, 120 ; Fowler Thomas, 3 id. 286, cited in 1 Green],
V. Insurance Co^ 6 Cowen, 675 ; on Evid., § 55.
Townsend v. Graves, 3 Paige, 455, 'As to malicious prosecution, see
26
EELETANCT AND PEOVINOE OF JUDGE AND JUEY. [§ 10.
issue, as, for example, a person's habitual disregard of his
financial obligations or his skill in the management of the af-
fairs intrusted to him, evidence of reputation bearing upon
these particular personal qualifications becomes relevant.'
But evidence of reputation is always required, and proof of
particular immoral acts or any specific bad conduct cannot be
relevant to show character.^
In prosecutions for crime the defendant may always give
or offer evidence of his previous good character and peaceable
disposition as relevant to rebut any presumption of criminal
intent which may arise from the circumstances against him.^
The good character of defendant, however, cannot be attacked
or impeached by the state in the first instance ; but where he
attempts to prove good character, evidence of his general bad
character, but not of any specific or particular vicious or crim-
inal act, becomes relevant in rebutta].*
Gee V. Culver, 13 Oreg. 598; Mclntire
V. Levering, 148 Mass. 546 ; Blizzard
V. Hays, 46 Ind. 166 ; Israel v. Brooks,
23 id. 575; Finley v. St. Louis Ref.
Co., 99 Mo. 559. Libel and slander,
see Insurance Co. v. Hazen, 110 Pa
St. 537 ; Treat v. Brown, 4 Conn. 408 ;
Nelson v. Wallace, 48 Mo. App. 193 ;
Sanford v. Rowley, 93 Mich. 119;
Hallam v. Post, 55 Fed. Rep. 456;
Morey V. Morning Journal, 133 N. Y.
307 ; Jones v. Duchow, 87 Cal. 109.
iBuswell V. Trimmer, 144 Mass.
350; Monahan v. Woi'cester, 150 id.
440; Hatt v. Nay, 144 id. 186.
^Leonard v. Allen, 11 Cush. 341,
345; State v. Donellon, 13 La. 1292;
Frazier v. Railroad, 38 Pa. St. 104;
Nelson v. State (Fla., 1893), 13 S. Rep.
861.
5 Hindi V. State, 35 Ga. 699; War-
ren V. State, 31 Tex. Cr. App. 573 ;
Dupree v. State, 33 Ala. 380 ; State v.
Cross, 68 Iowa, 180 ; Wesley v. State,
37 Miss. 827 ; Stephens v. People, 4
Park. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 396 ; People v.
Harrison, 98 Mich. 594; Murphy v.
People, 9 Colo. 435 ; McCarty v. Peo-
ple, 51 111. 231 ; Hall v. State, 132 Ind.
317 ; State v. Dumphy, 4 Minn. 438 ;
State V. Grate, 68 Mo. 22 ; Warren v.
Com., 37 Pa. St. 45 ; Walker v. State,
102 Ind. 502 ; State v. Parks, 109 N. C.
813 ; State v. Sterritte, 68 Iowa, 761 ;
MoDaniel v. State, 16 Miss. (8 Smed.
& M.) 40-1; State v. Schleagel, 50
Kan. 225 ; People v. Stewart, 38 Cal.
395 ; People v. Mills, 94 Md. 630 ; State
V. Moelschen, 53 Iowa, 310 ; People v.
Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9 ; Thomas v. Peo-
ple, 6^ N. Y. ^18 ; Gibson v. State, 23
Tex. App. 414; Carr v. State (Ind.,
1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 593; Cathcart v.
Com., 37 Pa. St 108 ; Hopps v. Peo-
ple, 31 111. 385. Tbe rule that a de-
fendant may introduce evidence of
good character has been sometimes
confined in its operation to those
crimes the commission of which in-
volves moral turpitude and not more
statutory offenses not malum in se.
Com. v. Nagle (Mass., 1893), 32 N. E.
Rep. 861.
* State V. Merrill, 3 Dev. (N. C.) L.
269 ; Spies v. People (Anarchist Case),
133 111. 1 ; Gibson v. State, 33 Tex.
§11,
EBLEVANOY AND PJEOVINCE OF JUDGE AND JUEY.
27
In a trial for homicide, evidence that the deceased was re-
puted to be of a peaceable disposition is irrelevant, unless in
rebuttal, where the defense alleges his quarrelsome character.^
But evidence of the character of the deceased, to show that he
was quarrelsome, turbulent and vindictive, or the reverse, is
admissible in behalf of the prisoner under a plea of self-defense,
but only where the evidence as to this main fact' is contradict-
ory and it is not conclusively "shown that defendant was
solely in fault.^
§ 11. Province of judge and jury. — The main question in-
volved, so far as the evidence is concerned, where an issue of
App. 414; state v. EUwood, 17 E. I.
763; Felsenthal v. State, 30 Tex.
App. 675. "The old rule that evi-
dence of the good character of the
defendant is not to be considered un-
less other evidence leaves the mind
in doubt has been much criticised.
The weight of authority is now
against it. If evidence of reputation
is admissible at all, its weight should
be left to be determined by the jury
in connection with all the other evi-
dence in the case. The circumstances
may be such that an established rep-
utation for good character, if it is
relevant to the issue, would alone
create reasonable doubt, although
without it the other evidence would
be convincing." Commonwealth v.
Leonard, 140 Mass. 470, 479.
1 Pound V. State, 43 Ga. 88 ; Roten
V. State (Fla., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 910 ;
Russell V. State, 11 Tex. App. 388;
Thomas v. People, 67 N. Y. 318 ; State
V. Hookett, 70 Iowa, 443 ; People v.
Bezy, 67 Cal. 333; Riley v. Com.
(Ky., 1893), 33 S. W. Rep. 333; State
V. Hogue, 6 Jones (N. C), 381 ; Chase
V. State, 46 Miss. 683 ; State v. Pearce,
15 Nev. 188 ; Bowman v. Smith (Tex.,
1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 48; Fields v.
State (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E, Rep. 780.
2 Perry v. State, 94 Ala. 35 ; West
V. State, 13 Tex. App. 640 ; Bond v.
State, 13 Fla. 738; Roten v. State
(Fla., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 910; State v.
Graham, 61 Iowa, 608 ; Alexander v.
Com., 105 Pa. St. 1 ; Marts v. State,
36 Ohio St. 163; People v. Harris
(Mich., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 645;
State V. Downs, 91 Mo. 19 ; Smith v.
State (Tex., 1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 831 ;
Reiley v. Com. (Ky., 1893), 33 S. W.
Rep. 233 ; State v. Mathews, 78 N. C.
523; State v. Pearce, 15 Nev. 188;
Com. V. Strasser, 153 Pa, St 431;
Harrison v. Com., 79 Va. 374 ; State
V. Nett, 50 Wis. 634; State v. Taylor,
44 La. Ann. 783 ; May v. People, 8
Colo. 310 ; Drake V. State, 75 Ga. 413 ;
State V. Kenion (R. L, 1893), 36 Atl.
Rep. 199. For evidence of a threat
made by the victim against the ac-
cused to be admissible, it is generally
but not universally held that it should
have been communicated to him if
he alleges that his actions were in-
fluenced by it People v. Scoggins,
37 Cal. 683. But evidence of specific
acts of violence is not admissible.
Campbell v. State, 38 Ark. 498 ; Peo-
ple v. Druse, 103 N. Y. 655 ; Nelson
V. State (Fla., 1893), 18 S. Rep. 361 ;
Fields V. State (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E.
Rep. 780. So where the defense is
that the deceased committed suicide,
evidence of his melancholy disposi-
tion is relevant Blackburn v. State,
33 Ohio St 146.
ZO EELBVANCT AND PEOVINOE OF JUDGE AND JUEY. [§ ii.
fact is tried by the court without a jury, must be its weight
and sufBciency. Under such circumstances no question of ad-
missibility can arise, — the judge in any event having to hear
or read it. Of course the relevancy of the testimony is always
to be considered whether the trial is by jury or not; but
where a jury is present, it is the office of the judge to deter-
mine all questions of admissibility, basing his decision to a
large extent upon the relevancy of the testimony offered to
the point in issue. ^
The weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility
of the witnesses, in all cases where upon the testimony an
issue of fact appears to arise, are for the consideration of the
jury alone.^ "But whether there is any evidence is a question
for the judge; whether it is suflBcieijt evidence is for the jury.'"
If the evidence offered by the party upon whom the burden
of proof rests is clear, distinct and uncontradicted, so that no
inference need be drawn, or where only one inference can be
possibly drawn by any reasonable man, and the other party
offers no evidence or fails to prove one or more material
points of his defense, it becomes the duty of the court to
direct the jury to find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.*
• 1 Green], on Evid., § 49. brook v. Howell, 34 111. App. 571 ;
2 Campbell v. State (Tex., 1893), 18 Wessels v. Beeman, 87 Mich. 481;
S. W. Rep. 409 ; State v. Jones, 44 Chicago, etc. R R. Co. v. Fisher (111.,
La. Ann. 1120; State v. Plum, 49 1893), 31 N. E. Eep. 406; Didier v.
Kan. 679 ; People v. Zormeck, 66 Penn. Co., 146 Pa. St. 582 ; 23 Atl. Rep.
Hun, 636; State v. Mexley (Mo., 1893), 801 ; Johnson v. People, 140 111. 350;
33 S. W. Rep. ,^75 ; Jackson v. Times, 39 N. E. Rep. 895 ; Webster v. Frow-
152 Pa, St. 406; White v. State, 31 ler, 50 N. W. Rep. 1074 ; 89 Mich. 303 ;
Tex. App. 339 ; State v. Mounts, 106 East Tenn.' etc. Co. v. Markens, 88
Mo. 236 ; State v. Kibling, 63 Vt. Ga. 60 ; Kansas, etc. Co. v. Ryan, 49
636 ; People v. Minaugh, 131 N. Y. Kan. 1 ; 30 Pac. Rep. 108 ; Leiber v.
563 ; Blankenship v. State, 55 Ark. Chicago, M. & St. P. Co. (Iowa, 1892),
244 ; People v. Cowgill, 93 Cal. 596 ; 50 N. W. Eep. 547 ; Albertsen v.
Newberry v. State (i^la., 1890), 8 S. Terry, 109 N. C. 8; Williams v. Dick-
Rep. 445 ; Weston v. Brown (Neb., enson, 38 Fla. 90 ; Conde v. Wiltsic,
1890), 46 N. W. Eep. 826 ; Louisville, 131 N. Y. 647. See i>ost, § 343a.
etc. Co. V. Stommel, 136 Ind. 35 ; 3 1 Greenl. on Ev., g 49.
Henderson v. Miller, 36 111. App. 333 ; * Sauber v. Collins, 40 111. App.
Stanley V. Montgomery, 103 Ind. 103; 426; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Parmenter,
Davis V. Hays, 89 Ala. 563; Higgin- 39 111. App. 270; Wolff v. Campbell,
botham V. Campbell, 85 Ga. 638; Yost 110 Mo. 114; 19 S. W. Rep. 622;
V. Jfensch, 37 W. N. C. 562; West- Meyer v. Houck, 53 N. W. Rep. 235;
11.]
EELETANCY AND PEOVINCE OF JUDGE AND JDEY.
29
On the other hand, where the party on whom is cast the
burden of proof fails to substantiate his allegations by evi-
dence showing that he has in law b. prima facie cause of action,
then there is no case for the jury, and it is the duty of the judge
to direct a nonsuit.'
The question of the power of the jury to determine ques-
tions of law, though much discussed, may now be considered
settled.^ It is a proposition of almost universal acceptance
that in all cases, both civil and criminal (except where a con-
trary rule is laid down by some constitutional or statutory
enactment),^ the power of the jury is confined to determining
the issue of fact, and that the rulings of the judge on the
principles and rules of law involved are to be received by
them as obligatory and to be implicitly followed.* The pre-
McMullen v. Carsen, 48 Kan. 263;
29 Pao. Rep. 317 ; Fitzgerald v. Hart,
17 S. W. Rep. 369 ; Gildersleeve v.
Atkinson (N. M., 1892), 27 Pac. Rep.
477; Schmidt t. Garfield Nat. Bank,
19 N. Y. S. 253 ; 64 Hun, 298 ; Fox v.
Spring L. Co., 89 Mich. 387 ; Haugen
V. a, M. & St. P.Ry. Co. (S. D., 1893),
53 N. W. Rep. 769; Eisenlord v.
Clum, 67 Hun, 518. See post, §§ 247-
250.
1 " Where the facts are undisputed
their effect is for the judgment of the
court Where different minds may
honestly draw different conclusions
from the facts, as where care and
negligence is to be inferred, the ques-
tion is for the jury." Sioux City, etc.
R. Co. V. Stout, 17 Wall. 663; Still-
water V. Archer, 18 N. Y. S. 888;
Gandelaria v. Railroad Co. (N. M.,
1892), 37 Pac. Rep. 497 ; Leavitt v.
Dodge, 61 Hun, 627 ; Johnson v. Ridir
(Iowa, 1892), 50 N. W. Rep. 36; Rum-
sey V. Boutwell, 61 Hun, 165; Col-
lins V. Burlington, etc. Co., 83 Iowa,
346; 49 N. W. Rep. 848; Central R.
etc. Co. V. Ingram (Ala., 1892), 10 S.
Rep. 516.
2 For an outline of the discussion,
see 1 Greenl. Evid., § 49.
' See Goldman v. State (Md., 1892),
23 Atl. Rep. 1097 ; Blaker v. State, 29
N. E. Rep. 1077; 130 Ind. 303. By
the constitution of many of the states
it is expressly provided that in prose-
cutions for libel the jury, under the
direction of the court, shall deter-
mine the law and the facts. Latly
V. Emery, 59 Hun, 237; Stale v.
Armstrong (Mo., 1891), 16 S. W. Rep.
604 ; State v. Burpee (Vt, 1893), 25
Atl. Rep. 964.
4 People V. Lem Yon (Gal., 1893),
82 Pac. Rep. 11 ; Wright v. Fonda,
44 Mo. App. 634; Sherwood v. Chi-
cago, etc. Co., 88 Mich. 108 ; Daven-
port V. Hannibal, 108 Mo. 471 ; 18 S.
W. Rep. 1123; Richards v. Wede-
meyer, 75 Md. 10; Gallon v. Van
Wormer (Tex., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep.
547; Kidwell v. Carson (Tex., 1893),
22 id. 534 ; Harper v. Morse (Mo., 1893),
21 id. 517 ; Chandler v. Knott (Iowa,
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 88; Willard v.
Siegel, 47 Mo. App. 1 ; Chicago Ch.
Co. v. Fogg, 53 Fed. Rep. 72 ; Elliott
V. Wananiaker, 155 Pa. St. 67 ; Camp-
bell V. Juimies, 3 Misc. R. 316;
Simpson v. Pegram (N. C, 1893), 17
S. E. Rep. 430. As bearing upon the
right of the jury to decide questions
30 EELEVANCY A.ND PROVINCE OF JUDGE AND JDET. [§ 11.
liminary question, whether there is adequate or sufficient evi-
dence, xvhere evidence is given on both sides from which an
inference either way may be drawn, is for the judge; and if
there is such evidence, no matter how contradictory on the
whole it may seem to hira, it will be his duty to send the case
to the jury.' Now the inquiry, is there fit or sufficient evi-
dence to send the case to the jury, can only be decided by the
judge by the employment and application of legal rules; and
the main question is, are there any facts in evidence which, if
uncontradicted or proved, would justify men of ordinary rea-
son, intelligence and fairness in deciding in favor of plaintiff?
Though the judge may be convinced that plaintiff has not
proved his case, if he believes that reasonable men may enter-
tain a different conclusion, or draw a different inference
from those facts, then it is his duty to submit them to the
jury ; and so long as the inference drawn by the jury is fair
and reasonable, it will be valid even though contrary to the
conclusion which the judge may draw.^ But the court in
charging the jury should not assume facts as proved upon
which no evidence was offered or to which the evidence is so
contradictory that reasonable men may form different opin-
ions thereon.' "Where, however, the fact is conceded by all
of law, see Pierce's Case, 13 N. H. be some evidence to. sustain every
536 ; State v. Hodge, 50 N. H. 510 ; element of the case competent both
Com. V. McManus, 143 Pa. St. 64; in quality and quantity in law to
People V. Pine, 3 Barb. 566 ; Brown sustain it, and yet it may be met by
V. Com. (Va., 1890), 10 S. E. Eep. 745 ; countervailing proof so potent as to
Com. V. Abbott, 13 Mete. 133, 134 ; leave no reasonable doubt of the op-
Higginbotham v. Campbell, 43 Mo. posing conclusion." Metropolitan R
App. 176 ; Cochran v. Jones, 85 Ga. Co. v. Moore, 131 U. S. 567-569.
678. The province of the court and '^ "The jury should take the law as
jury is frequently defined by statute, laid down by the court and give it
as, for example, in Connecticut, full effect, but its application is for
Morehouse v. Eenisen, 59 Conn. 393. them to determlna The court may
' " Strictly speaking, evidence is not enter their distinctive province,
insufficient in law only when there These are the check and balance
is a total absence of such proof in which give to trial by jury its value."
quantity or kind as, in the particular Hickman v. Jones, 9 Wall. (U. S.)
case, a rule of law requires as essen- 301-3. See post, § 377.
tial to the establishment of the fact. 3 Wright v. Fonda, 44 Mo. App.-634;
Insufficiency in point of fact may Griel v. Lomax, 94 Ala. 641 ; Newton
exist where there is no insufficiency v. State (Miss., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 560 ;
in point of law ; that is, there may Patrick v. Skoman (Colo., 1892), 29
§ 11.] EELEVANOY AND PEOVINCB OF JUDGE .AND JUET. 31
parties, or, being proved, is not disputed, it is not an invasion
of the province of the jury for the court to state that fact as
true in its charge.' The jury must, in the rendition of their
verdict, determine the whole issue, involving, as it may, ques-
tions of law as well as of fact. In pursuance of this duty as
jurors, and having in view their oaths as such, they may dis-
regard any and all expression of opinion on the part of the
judge upon any questions of fact and decide adverse to such
opinion, provided their decision is not contrary to the evi-
dence. On the other hand it is not only the right, but the
duty, of the presiding judge to instruct the jury regarding
all points of law involved, and it is the duty of the jury to
receive and observe these instructions and to make their ver-
dict conform thereto. So though the weight, sufficiency and
credit to be given to the evidence are exclusively a matter for
the jury, the court may express its opinion as regards the
character of the evidence, provided it is done in such a way
that the province of the jury as triers of the issue of fact is
not invaded. When, after a proper instruction as tt) the prin-
ciples and rules of law concerned, the jury wholly disregard
the evidence and the rules of law, the court may set their ver-
dict aside as against the weight of the evidence and as not
conformable to the law.^
The court may call attention to the remarks of counsel in
connection with the evidence ; ' may caution the jury to be
slow in rejecting evidence,* or may point out how the inten-
tion of a party should be proved ; ' may call attention to the
gravity of the offense with which the prisoner is charged," or
define malice, or point out the fact that a criminal intent may
Pac. Eep. 31; Chicago, etc. Co. v. 263; Taylor v. Taylor, 79 Tex. 104;
Remminger, 140 111. 334 ; State v. Trinity, etc. Co. y. Lane, 79 id. 648 ;
Hope, 103 Mo. 410 ; Hitchcock v. McGruire v. Railroad Co., 43 Mo. App.
Thayer, 33 Neb. 477; 49 N. W. Rep. 354; Bragg v. Bletz, 7 D. C. 105;
374; St. Louis v. Trimble, 54 Ark. Long v. Milford, 137 Pa. St 132.
354; 15 S. W. Rep. 899; Potts v. 2 See posif, § 377.
Jones, 140 Pa. St. 48 ; Dulaney v. St. ^ Griffin, etc. Co. v. Joannes, 80
Louis S. R. Co., 42 Mo. App. 659 ; Wis. fiOl.
Horn V. State (Tex., 1893), 13 S. Rep. *Lyts v. Keevey, 5 Wash. St. 606.
329 ; Townley v. Coal Co., 59 Hun, " Tyler v. Hall, 106 Mo. 313.
6J6. estate v. Mcintosh (S. C, 1898), 17
1 Mooney v. York Iron Co,, 83 Mich. S. E. Rep. 446.
32 EELBVANOY AND PEOVINOE OF JUDGE AND JOEY. [§ 11.
be inferred from circumstantial evidence,^ or may suggest that
certain evidence is uncorroborated;^ may suggest possible ex-
planations of seeming discrepancies in the evidence and show
how that which is inconsistent may be reconciled ; ' may state
to the jurj' that what a party admits against his interest on
the witness stand may be considered as true;* may call atten-
tion to the necessity of a jury agreeing upon a verdict;' may
state a hypothetical case for the guidance of the jury and to
emphasize more clearly the principles of law involved.* But
to state certain facts as testified to, ignoring all others, and
to inform the jury that from those facts they have a right to
draw a certain inference, is an invasion of the province of the
jury." On the other hand, the law does not require the in-
structions on the evidence to be entirely colorless, so far as
the opinion as to the credibility of evidence is concerned, if the
whole case is submitted to the jury to decide on all the facts
and the law is accurately stated. A mere hint of an opinion
upon the evidence by the court, or his evident leaning to one
party or' tiie other, is not enough to warrant a new trial.^ So
the court may aid the jury by recapitulating the evidence, re-
freshing their minds where their recollection is likely to be dim,
elucidating that which is complicated and involved, and so
advising them that they may be able to take a just and im-
partial view of all parts of the evidence in their true re-
lations.'
1 State V. Mcintosh, supra. Y. 420 ; McGee v. Wells (S. C, 1893),
2 People V. Rohl, 138 N. Y. 616. 16 S. E. Rep. 89 ; Hoflf v. State (Ga,
SYork V. MaineR. Co., 84N. Y. 17. 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 99; State v.
« State V. Brooks, 99 Mo. 137 ; 13 S. Crawford (S. C, 1893), 17 S. E. Rep.
W. Rep. 633. 199.
5 State V. Hawkins, 18 Oreg. 476 ; 33 9 " What is said by the court as to
Pac. Rep. 475. the weight of evidence is advisory,
6 Ohio, etc. Co. v. Kleinsmith, 88 in nowise intended to fetter the exer-
111. App. 45 ; People v. Rohl, 138 N. cise of the juror's independent judg-
Y. 016 ; Cobb v. Covenant Ins. Co., nient. With this limitation it is the
153 Mass. 176 ; Wright v. Mulvaney, right and duty of the court to aid
78 Wis. 89. them by recalling the testimony to
' Peters v. Bourneau, 33 111. App. their recollection, by collecting its
177 ; State v. Choy, 84 Cal. 376. details, by suggesting grounds of
8 McClain V. Com., 110 Pa. St 363 ; 1 preference where there is contradic-
Atl. Rep. 45 i People v. McLean, 184 tion, by directing their attention to
CaL 480 ; Hurlbut v. Hurlbut, 138 N. the most important facts, by elimi-
§ 12.] EELEVANCY AND PKOVINCE OF JUDGE AND JURY. .33
§ 13. Blended questions of law &nd fact. — The rule that
pure questions of law and of fact are for the solution of the
judge and jury respectively is on some occasions difficult of
application, because of the blending of these questions in one
issue in such a manner that they are not easily susceptible of
separate determination. In an action for a malicious prose-
cution, the question of the existence of probable cause is for
the court. In other words, where the evidence is conflicting
it is for the court to say what particular facts constitute prob-
able cause, leaving it for the jury to find whether or not such
facts are proved by the evidence.' Perhaps the most impor-
tant subject concerning which the respective provinces of the
judge and the jury have been discussed is that of the reason-
ableness of time or of a person's care or skill under certain
circumstances. The correct practice in all cases where negli-
gence is alleged is for the judge to instruct the jury upon the
amount or nature of the care, diligence or skill which may be
llegally incumbent upon persons in the circumstances of the
defendant,^ leaving it for the jury to determine, in all cases
where the evidence on this point is contradictory, what the
circumstances were, and whether the defendant has properly
exercised the required care, skill or diligence. The degree of
reasonableness of the care is ordinarily defined in general
terms, and the instruction amounts usually to a mere state-
ment that negligence consists in doing or omitting to do an
act which a person of ordinary care or skill would or would
not do under the circumstances.' This instruction would be
nating the true points of inquiry, by Pa. St. 458 ; Boogber v. Howe, 99
resolving the evidence, however com- Mo. 183. Contra, Low v. Greenwood,
plicated, into its simpler elements, 30 111. App. 184; Archibald v, Mc-
and by showing the bearing of its Laurin, 21 Can. S. C. R 588; Sanders
several parts and their combined ef- v. Palmer, 55 Fed. Rep. 217.
fects stripped of every consideration * 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 50.
which might otherwise mislead or 'Deming v. Merch. etc. Co., 90
confuse them. How this duty shall Tenn. 306 ; Summers v. Bergner &
be performed depends upon the dis- Eng. Co., 143 Pa. St. 114; Millott v>
cretion of the judge. "Without this N. Y. & N. E. R Co., 19 N. Y. S. 122;
aid, chance, mistake or caprice may Colvin v. Peabody, 155 Mass. 104 ; 29
determine the result" Nudd v. Bur- N. E. Rep. 59 ; Mullen v. Railroad
rows, 91 U. S. 439. Co., 21 N. Y. S. 101 ; Murphy v. Eail-
I Cheever v. Sweet (Mass., 1890), 23 road Co., 62 Hun, 587 : Gaynor v.
N. E. Rep. 831 ; Leahey v. March, 155 Old Colony R R, 100 Mass. 208 ; Ly-
3
34 EELEVANCT AND PEOVINOB OF JUDGE AND JUET. [§ 13.
correct, and it has accordingly been held that if the court in-
structs the jury that the commission or omission of specific
or particular acts constitutes negligence, then he invades the
province of the jury by drawing inferences of fact and en-
deavoring to force his opinions upon them.'
§ 13. Preliminary questions of fact bearing on admissi-
bility.— To ascertain whether evidence is admjssible, certain
preliminary questions of fact, often of a complex nature, must
be considered, and these may, it is settled, be decided by the
court unaided by the jury. Thus it is for the judge to say
whether the witness is qualified to testify as an expert,'^ and
on what subjects he may be examined;' whether a dying
declaration is inadmissible because the declarant expected to
recover ; * and to decide upon the authenticity and proper exe-
cution of deeds and writings generally.'' So questions as to the
voluntary nature of confessions,^ as to what is hearsay evi-
dence,' the admissibility of statements claimed to constitute a
part of the res gestae,^ or to be admissible as evidence of
pedigree,' the capacity of witnesses to testify,'" and as to
the admissibility of depositions where the witpess cannot be
man V. Uuion R. R, 114 id. 83; John- care." Galveston City E. Co. v.
son V. Kelleher, 155 Mass. 125 ; 39 N. Hewitt, 67 Tex. 478.
E. Rep. 300 ; Nesbitt v. Greenville ' Bridges v. North London Ry. Co.,
(Miss.. 1893', 10 S. Rep. 459; Wood L. R. 7 H. L. 313; Avilla v. Nash, 117
V. Council, 143 Pa. St. 467; Butler v. Mass. 318; Philadelphia, etc. Co. v.
Chicago R. R. (Iowa, 1893), 54 N. W. Henrice, 93 Pa. St. 431.
Rep. 308; Payne v. Troy, etc. Co., 83 2 See g§ 187, 188.
N. Y. 573 ; Hodges v. St. Louis, etc. ' Jones ■«. Tucker, 41 N. H. 546 ;
Co., 71 Mo. 50; Shafter v. Evans, 53 § 187.
Cal. 32; Savings, etc. Co. v. Phillips < See posi, §§100-113; Hall v. Com.
(Ga,, 1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 83; Mason (Va., 1893), 15 S. R Rep. 517; Young
V. Atl. Av. R R Co., 4 Misc. R 391 ; v. State (Ala., 1893), 10 S. Rep. 913.
Hilton V. Ala., etc. Co., 12 S. Rep. STunstall v. Cobb, 109 N. C. 316;
276; Kansas, etc. Co. v. Richardson, Collins v. Ball, 82 Tex. 359; Com. v.
25 Kan. 391. "What facts will con- Coe, 115 Mass. 481. See § 130.
stitute that diligence which the law sSee %-iost, % 90; State v. Carson
requires must depend upon the cir- (S. C, 1893), 15 S. E. Rep. 588.
cumstances of each case. The omis- 'Harter v. Hopkins, 83 Wis. 309;
sion must be considered in relation post, g§ 50-63.
to the business in which the person ^Post, § 54 et seq.
who is to exercise the care is en- ' Doe v. Davies, 10 Q. B.. 314 ; post,
gaged, and with reference to the per- § 53.
sons, whether adults or children, lo Post, g§ 313-317.
who may be injured by the want of
§ 13.] BELEVANOT AND PKOVINCE OF JUDGE AND JUEY. 35
produced,' are for the court. Upon tkese and similar questions
of fact his decision is final unless objected and excepted to at
the time and submitted to an appellate court for review upon
a proper bill of exceptions in which the evidence is fully set
forth.^ It is discretionary with the judge, however, in case
the proof is not convincing, to submit the evidence on any one
of these preliminary questions to the jury; and where the
issue, as usually happens, is one of mingled law and fact, he is
bound to advise them as to the Yules of law involved which are
obligatory upon them in deciding these collateral issues.'
1 See post, ^§ 361-363 ; Omaha V. 22 S. W. Rep. 419 ; Fleming v. Latham,
Jensen, 53 N. W. Rep. 833 ; Schind- 48 Kan. 773 ; Farnoomb v. Stern
ler V. Railroad Co., 87 Mich. 400. (Colo., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 613 ; Jones
2 State V. Pike, 49 ' N. H. 399 ; Mat- v. Charlotte, etc. (S. C, 1893), 17 S. E.
son V. Frazer, 48 Mo. App. 303; Rep. 698 ; State v. Mitchell, 37 W. Va.
Haines v. Sairers, 93 Mich. 440 ; Car- 565. See post, §§ o66-370.
■ penter v. Willey (Vt., 1893), 26 Atl. 3 See ante, § 13.
Rep. 488 ; Wells v. Burtz (Tex., 1893),
CHAPTEE II.
SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE.
§ 18. Matter of substance and of es-
sential description.
19. Allegations of value, quantity,
time, place, etc.
20. Formal allegations,
21. Proof of contracts.
§ 23. Variance in the proof of sealed
instruments.
23. Substance of the issue in crimi-
nal trials.
24. Variance.
§ 18. Matter of substance and of essential description. —
As regards the amount of evidence which is requisite in any
case, it is a general rule that it is necessary only that the sub-
stance of the issue should be proved.' By the rules of plead-
ingat common law, matter which was essentially descriptive —
that is, which identifies the subject-matter on which the cause
of action is based — must be literally proved. Anj'' variance,
however slight, between the allegation of the facts in the
pleading and their proof would be fatal. So in a suit to re-
cover damages for false imprisonment, a failure to prove that
plaintiff was acquitted on the precise day alleged is no vari-
ance if the substance of the issue — i. e., the acquittal — is
proved.^ But where it is alleged that the plaintiff was ar-
rested " on a charge of larceny and for stealing an ox," and
it is proved that the arrest was because plaintiff " did remove
or steal one ox from said range," the action should be dis-
missed because of a material variance in a matter of essential
description.'
' 1 Greenl. on Ev., g 56 ; Sommer v.
Smith (Cat, 1893), 37 Pac. Rep. 208;
Vette V. Leonori, 42 Mo. .App. 217 ;
Singleton v. O'Blenis, 125 Ind. 151 ;
Cahill V. Colgan (Cat, 1893), 31 Pac.
Eep. 614 ; Scanlan v. Hodges, 53 Fed.
Rep. 354 ; Baxter v. Chicago, R. 1 &
P. Ry. Co. (Iowa, 1893), 54 N. W.
Rep. 350; Wellington v. Howard
(Ind., 1893), 31 N. E. Rep. 852 ; Gom'rs
V. Lomax (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep.
800; Hartsock v. Mort, 76 Md. 281;
Ahern v. Telephone Co. (Oreg., 1893),
33 Pac. Rep. 403; Olds v. Marshall
(Ala.. 1890), 8 S. Rep. 284.
2 Vail V. Lewis, 4 Johns. 450; 1
Greenl. on Ev., § 56.
'Thompson v. Richardson (Ala.,
1893), 11 S. Eep. 728.
§ 18.] SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE. 37
No general test can be given by which it can always be ac-
curately determined whether a given allegation is formal or
essentially descriptive. The question turns largely upon the
circumstances of each case. The strict rules of common-law
pleading have, however, been greatly relaxed in modern times,
and an extreme particularity of proof is now often dispensed
with, provided the opposite party is not surprised or preju-
diced thereby.' Thus, proof that the plaintiff jumped from
a car will sustain an allegation that he fell from one;^ while
a charge that he was injured by a " rocket " is sustained if it
be shown that he was struck by a bomb.'
In defining matter of essential description we must first
consider does the allegation narrow or limit the description
of something which is necessary to the cause of action.^ Thus
of contracts either parol or written it is saiil that all particu-
lars of time, value, person, place, size and name are essentially
descriptive. Serving to identify the contract, and they must
generally be precisely proved.* So, too,^ the allegation of the
capacitj^ in which the plaintiff sues, or of his title, is usually
descriptive and must be strictly proved." Proof of ownership
must generally correspond precisely with the allegation.'
1 See § 24 ville, etc. Co. v. Hurt (Ala., 1893), 13
2 Gulf, etc. Co. V. Johnson (Tex., S. Rep. 130); but au allegation that
1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 151. a horse " was driven at a furious
^Colvin V. Peabody (Mass., 1893), rate" is mere surplusage and need
29 N. E. Rep. 59. For similar oa,ses not be proved. Robbins v. Diggins
of immaterial variance, see Carroll (Iowa, 1889), 48 N. W. Rep. 306.
V. Water Co., 5 Wash. St. 613; Proof that au injury was caused by
Bevens v. Barnett (Ark., 1893), 22 a team will not sustain an allegation
S. W. Rep. 160; Roe v. Cutter, 4 of injury by machinery. McPherson
Wash. St 611 ; Pennsylvania Co. v. v. Bridge Co. (Oregon, 1890), 26 Pac.
Dolan, 33 N. E. Rep. 802 ; Chicago, Rep. 560.
etc. Co. V. Smith (Ind., 1893), 33 N. n Greenl. on Ev., § 57.
E. Rep. 341 ; Parsons v. Hughes, 63 5 Elting v. Dayton, 63 Hun, 629 ;
Hun, 621; Paris, etc. Co. v. Greiner, Higman v. Hood, 3 Ind. App. 456;
84 Tex. 443 ; 19 S. W. Rep. 564 ; Lake 29 N. E. Rep. 1141 ; Ternes v. Dunn,
Shore Ry. Co. v. Hundt, 140 111. 525 ; 7 Utah, 497 ; 37 Pac. Rep. 692 ; Brown
Ashman v. Flint, etc. Co., 90 Mich. v. Rouse, 93 Cal. 237 ; Weall v. King,
567 ; 51 N. W. Rep. 645 ; Norcross v. 12 East, 453 ; Ferguson v. Harwood,
Weldon; 59 Vt 50 ; Struthers v. 7 Cranch, 408, 413. Contra, Kidder
Drexel, 7 S. (St. 1393. Wanton neg- v. Vandersloot, 114 111. 133.
ligence, when charged, must be 6 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 57, citing
proven strictly (Richmond, etc. Co. Moises v. Thornton, 8 T. R. 303, 308.
V. Farmer, 13 S. Rep. 86. Cf. Louis- 'Galveston, etc. Co. v. Becht (Tex.,
38 SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE. [§ 19.
§ 19. Formal allegations. — Eegardjng those allegations in
a pleading which are formal and technical merely, as the alle-
gation in trover that plaintiff lost the goods, or in asswnpsit
that he promised to pay for them what they were worth,' or
the allegation in an indictment for homicide that death was
caused by some particular weapon or means,^ it may be said
that though by a general denial in a civil action, or by a plea
of not guilty to the indictment, they are put directly in issue,
they are not generally regarded as essentially descriptive and
need not be precisely proved as alleged.' In trover the sub-
stance of the issue is the conversion by the defendant, and
this of course must be proved substantially as alleged. So in
a trial for homicide, if the killing by the defendant be proved,
the proof of the manner of the killing, so long as it agrees In
substance with that alleged, is immaterial.*
All allegations essentially descriptive must be proved, no
matter what their form, while allegations not material and
having no bearing on the issue need not be proved, and may
and should be regarded as surplusage, though alleged with
extreme explicitness and formality. But allegations not es-
sentially descriptive may be made so b}'^ their connection with
those that are, and they must then be proved as alleged if
they are not pleaded with a videlicet.^ Thus when the exact
price of the goods is alleged in an action for a breach of war-
ranty, it must be strictly proved unless alleged with a videlicet,
when the form of the allegation would be that the sale was for
a valuable consideration videlicet, to wit, for $100.* It should
1893), 31 a W. Rep. 971. Cf. Union 6 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 60. The
Stock Yards v. Gillespie, 137 U. S. effect of this word as used in a plead-
411 ; Chicago, etc. Co. v. Rolvink, 31 ing is to show that the pleader
111. App. 596. does not undertake to prove his
1 Fairfax F. M. Co. v. Chambers allegations precisely. Stephen on
(Md., 1893), 23 Atl. Rep. 1034; Math- Pleading, 309; 1 Chitty on Pleading,
ews V. Tappan, 6 Mo. 376. 261, 262, 348. "A ' viz.' serves to give
2 3UusgeiionCrimes, p. 711; Turner additional particulars of time or
v. State (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 54 1 place or circumstances explanatory
Thomas v. Com. (Ky., 1893), 20 S. W. of previous statements made in gen-
Rep. 336; Hernandez v. State (Tex., eral terms; it cannot render nugatory
1893), 23 S. W. Rep. 973. previous specific averments." Lewis
3 Young V. Black, 7 Cranch (U. S.), v. Hitchcock, 10 Fed. Rep. 7.
,436; 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 59. n Greenl. on Evid., § 60, citing
* See § 23. Arnfleld v, Bate, 3 M. & S. 173.
§ 20.] SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE. 39
not be understood that a variance may be avoided, or exact
proof of material allegations dispensed with, by the use of
the Vvord videlicet} In pleading unnecessary averments a
part}'' may sometimes, unless he plead with a videlicet, incur
the burden of proving them precisely as laid.^
§ 30. Allegations of value, quantity, time, place, etc. —
Among allegations which are often considered immaterial,
and of which, therefore, strict proof is not required, are those
of time,' place,* value, quantity and quality." So in an action
to recover damages for negligence,^ or for an assault to the
person, the details of the time and place of its occurrence are
immaterial, except where, by the peculiar nature of the case,
time and place are rendered essential.'
Averments of value, as, for example, of the amount of rent
claimed to be due, or of the value of goods taken in trover,
and generally of matter which is alleged solely in aggravation
of damages, and which does not involve the plaintiff's right
of action, need not be precisely proved.^ Sometimes an allega-
tion of place may be material and require to be strictly proved.
Thus, when the declaration in an action to recover damages
for negligence shows that plaintiff was a passenger between
stations A. and B., and the proof shows that he was a pas-
senger from C. to D., between which stations A. and B. were
located, the variance will be fatal.*
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 60. Nat. Bank v. Stephenson, 83 Tex.
2 1 Gi-eenl. on Evid., § 60, citing 435 : Holman v. Pleasant Grove City,
Grimwood v. Barrit, 6 T. R. 460 ; Brug- 30 Pac. Eep. 73.
nier V. United States, 1 Dak. 9 ; Tw-iss -i Brown v. Sullivan, 71 Tex. 470;
V. Baldwin, 9 Conn. 393 ; State v. Mur- St. Louis Railway Co. v. Turner, 1
phy, 55 Vt. 549 ; Paiiton v. Holland, Tex. Civ. App. 625 ; McCaslin v.
17 Johns. 93; Vowles v. MUler, 3 Lake Shore R R. Co., 93 Mich. 553;
Taunt. 137 ; Gould on Pleadings, 58, Georgia, etc. Co. v. Miller (Ga., 1893),
sees. 35-41. 16 S. E. Rep. 939 ; Lake Shore, etc.
3 Halfin V. Winkleman, 18 S. W. Co. v. Hundt (111., 1892), 30 N. E. Rep.
Eep. 443 ; Ericksen v. Schuster, 44 458 ; Rockford v. Hollenbeck, 84 111.
Minn. 441 ; Lasater v. Van Hook, 77 App. 40.
Tex. 650 ; St Louis, etc. Co. v. Evans, 5 1 Greenl. on Evid., g 61.
78 id. 369 ; Ridenhour v. Kansas 6 See notes 3 and 4, supra.
City Cable Ry. Co., 103 Mo. 270; ■? phettiplace v. N. Pao. Ry. Co.
Hudson V. Hudson (Ga., 1893), 16 S. (Wis., 1893), 54 N. W. Eep. 1093.
E. Rep, 349 ; Devlin v. Boyd, 69 Hun, SHutohins v.- Adams, 3 Greenl. 174.
328 ; James v. Work, 34 N. Y, S. 149 ; Cf. Ross v. Malone (Ala., 1892), 13 S.
Russell V. Bradley, 47 Kan. 438; Rdp. 182.
Drown v. Forrest, 63 Vt 557 ; First " Wabash, etc. Co. v. Friedman
40
SOBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE.
[§2L
§ 21. Proof of contracts. — A written contract, in cases
not within the statute of frauds,' is not required to be proved
unless it is set out in the pleadings.^ If a contract, whether
oral or written, is pleaded, it must be substantially proved as
alleged, particularly as to those portions by which an obliga-
tion is created, including all circumstances relating to consid-
eration, time and mode of performance.^ Proof of an alter-
native or conditional contract will not support an allegation
of one which is absolute;' nor will proof of one that is abso-
lute sustain an averment of one in the alternative.^ An alle-
gation of an implied contract will be supported by proof of
an express one,* though a declaration alleging money had and
received, it has been held, is not sustained by proof of a
promise to pay money.'
The consideration, with all attendant details, should be
pleaded; and where this is done, the party will be held to
prove the consideration strictly as it is alleged.^ Accord-
ingly, proof of an agreement to pay a fixed and definite sum
will not sustain an allegation of a contract to pay merely
what is reasonable."
(III., 1892), 30 N. E. Rep. 353. See,
also, Montezuma v. Wilson (Ga., 1889),
9 a E. Rep. 17; Whitney Mfg. Co. v.
Eiohmoncl & D. R Co. (S. C, 1893), 17
S. E. Rep. 147 ; Hood v. Pioneer M.
& M. Co. (Ala., 1892), 11 S. Rep. 10.
A defendant is entitled to judgment
if he proves one of several pleas in
bar, though he fails to prove the
other. Leiter v. Day, 35 111. App. 3i8.
i See post, §§301-270.
' 2Hemminger v. West. Ass. Co.
(Mich., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 949;
Soaps v. Eiltberg, 42 111. App. 875 ;
Hansen v. Hale, 44 id. 474 ; Hargrove
V. Adcock, 111 N. C. 166.
'Le Baron v. United States, 4
Wall. 642. A writing is admissible
to prove the contract alleged, though
not alleged to be in writing. Fiedler
v. Stone, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 340.
< 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 58 ; Saxton v.
Johnson, 14 Johns. 418; Alexander
V. Harris, 4 Cranch, 299 ; Baylies v.
Fettyplace, 7 Mass. 335; Lower v.
Conyers, 7 Cow. 263.
5 Browning v. Berry, 107 N. C. 231.
An allegation of a joint loan is not
supported by proof of a loan to one.
York V. Fortenbury, 15 Colo. 129.
« Ashtou V. Shepherd (Ind., 1890),
32 N. E. Rep. 98.
'Clark V. Sherman, 5 Wash. St
681.
3 Bromley v. Goff, 75 Me. 213;
Benson v. Dean, 40 Minn. 455 ; Rob-
inson Con. Coal Co. v. Johnson, 23
Pac. Rep. 459.
9 Cleaves v. Lord, 3 Gray (Mass.),
66, 71. ^Nor is an agreement to pay
money sustained by proof of a prom-
ise to deliver goods. Titus v. Ash,
24 N. H. 319. A landlord cannot re-
cover for goods furnished a tenant
in a suit for the rent. Atkinson v.
Cox (Ark., 1890), 16 S. W. Rep. 124.
But where a contract of hiring at a
stipulated rate is alleged, plaintiS
§ 22.] SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE. 41
If the consideration, though containing more than one
promise, be entire, it must be proved as alleged. So a party
cannot allege that he has agreed" to do one thing and recover
bjr proving that he has performed some act of a distinct
character. Accordingly, proof that one agreed to finish a
ship will not sustain an allegation that he promised to build
one;' nor will proof that he delivered spruce lumber sustain
a contract to deliver pine. An allegation of a note payable
without defalcation or discount is not sustained by proving
one payable " without defalcation." ^ But a plaintiff, though
he cannot sue in tort and recover on contract, may recover
for a wrong which is alleged and proved, though in the same
action he sue on a contract which he fails to prove.'
§ 22. Yariance in the proof of sealed instruments. — Ac-
cording to the rules of common-law pleading, where a deed is
pleaded according to its tenor — that is, by setting out an
exact copy in full — every part so stated was regarded as
essentially descriptive,- and' it was required to be literally
proved in every particular. In the absence of a statutory
power of amendment, a variance was fatal.'' But when a deed
or other instrument is pleaded according to legal effect — i. e.,
where the purport only is .set out — the same preciseness of
proof is not required, and proof of a deed conforming in sub-
stance and legal effect with the allegation will suffice, though
a verbal variance exists.^ When oyer of the deed, or its
modern equivalent, the production of the deed or a copy of it
in court, is claimed, the party has a right to a verbatim copy,
though at this day, in consequence of the very liberal con-
struction of the statutes of amendment, any discrepancy hot
going to the merits of the case would be disregarded.*
may recover, the fair value of his gusonv. Harwrood, 7Cranoh, 408, 413;
services, tliough he fail to prove the Bowditch v. Mawley, 1 Campb. 195 ;
rate alleged, if a promise to pay can People v. "Warner, 5 Wend. 273",
be implied from the circumstances. Sheehy v. Mandeville, 7 Cranch, 308:
Miller v. Eldridge, 136 Ind. 461. United States v. Le Baron, 40 Wall.
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 68. 642. See ■post, " Private virritings,"
2 Addis V. Van Buskirk, 4 Zabr. g 125 et seq.
218 ; 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 68. ^ Whitlock v. Ramsey, 3 Munf. 510 ;
3 Crothers v. Acock, 48 Mo. App. Ankerstein v. Clarke, 4 T. R. 616.
318. * See post, § 126 ; Goodbub v. Schee-
< 1 Greenl, on Evid., § 69, citing Fer- ler, 3 Ind. App. 318; Glacier Mount
42 SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE. [§ 23.
§ 23. Substance of the issue in criminal trials.— Whether
greater strictness of proof is required in criminal than in civil
proceedings in favor of life and liberty is a question upon
which a diversity of opinion is found.' But no variance will
be deemed to exist if the indictment is separable and the sub-
stance of the offense is proven, though certain averments
which are not material remain unproved.^ Thus, where sev-
eral fraudulent misrepresentations are alleged in a prosecu-
tion for obtaining money or goods by false pretenses, it will
be enough to prove a material part of them.' So, too, it has
been held that larceny may be proven on the trial of an in-
dictment for burglary,* or robbery from the person.*
All the circumstances of person, place or thing which are
described in an indictment with extreme or unnecessary par-
ticularity must be proven strictly, where by such a course of
pleading these details are essential to describe its identity to
the jury. So where one is indicted for stealing a horse which
is described either by color, age or brand, these averments are
material, and a variance is fatal.* In a prosecution for an as-
James v. Walratb, 8 Johns. 410 ; things without proof of the coramiS-
Silver Mining Co. y. Willis, 137 U. S. sion of the others." Bork v. People, 91
480; Dorr v. Fenno, 13 Pick. 521; N. Y. 13 ; State v. Gray, 39 Minn. 144.
Clifford V. Mayer (Ind., 1893), 33 N. 3 People v. Haynes, 11 Wend. (N.
E. Rep. 137. Cf Toledo, etc. Co. v. Y.) 565 ; Beasley v. Stat«, 59 Ala.
Harnsberger, 41 111. App. 494. 20; Com. v. Morrill, 63 Mass. 571;
iBeeclrs Case, 1 Leach Cas. 158; State v. Vorbacl^ 66 Mo. 168; State
United States v. Porter, 3 Day, 383, v. Dunlop, 24 Me. 77.
386, cited 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 65, 4 Barlow v._ State, 77 Ga. 448. Cf.
maintain that the rules of evidence Groves v. State, 76 Ga. 808; State v.
are the same ; but see, contra, 3 Rus- Colclough, 31 S. C. 156 ; Kennegar v.
sell on Crimes, 588 ; Rosooe's Crim. State, 130 Ind. 176.
Ev. 73 ; United States v. Button, 2 5 state v. Keeland, 90 Mo. 287.
Mason, 464 ; Kline V. Baker, 106 Mass. ^Coleman v. State (Tex., 1887), 3
161. See Walker v. State (Ala., 1893), S. W. Rep. 859 ; State v. Jackson, 30
10 S. Rep. 401. Me. 39; Wiley v. State, 74 Ga. 840;
2 Finney v. State, 15 S. W. Rep. 175. Sweat v. State, 4 Tex. App. 617 ;
"Where an offense may be commit- Groom v. State, 23 id. 83. When a
ted by doing any one of several statutory distinction is made between
things, the indictment may in a sin- the species of any animal, proof of
gle count group them together and one is a variance if another species
charge the defendant with having was alleged. State v. Buckles, 36
committed them all, and a con vie- Kan. 237; Marshall v. State, 31 Tex.
tion may be had of any one of those 471. So an allegation of stealing an
§23.]
SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE.
43
sault, its date,' or the locality;^ where it was coraraitted, need
not be precisely proved, as such facts do not constitute essen-
tial elements of the crime.' But where place or time is mate-
rial, as in a' prosecution for selling liquor between specified
dates,* or for transporting liquors between two given points,*
the particulars of time and place must be precisely proved.
A variance between the allegation of the name of a person
and the proof, whether it be that of the person upon whom
an assault was committed or of whose murder the accused,
stands charged, or who was the owner of the property stolen,
has often been held fatal.^ But a mere error in spelling, or
the use of a nickname, is not a variance ; and if the names be
idem sonans, or if sufiicient evidence can be introduced to
identify the person, an immaterial variance of name will be
disregarded.'
animal is not supported by proof of
the theft of the carcass. Hunt v.
State, 55 Ala. 138.
1 Cross V. State, 17 S. W. Rep. 1096.
Cf. People V. Formosa, 30 N. E. Rep.
492 ; 131 N. Y. 478. Generally, unless
time or place is an element in the
nature of or is made part of the stat-
utory description of a crime, it need
not be strictly proven though alleged,
provided the offense is shown to have
been committed prior to the date of
the indictment and within the juris-
diction. Arcia v. State, 38 Tex. App.
198 ; State v. Dorr, 83 Me. 313 ; Jack-
son V. State, 88 Ga. 787; Clark v.
State, 16 S. E. Rep. 96; Com. v.
Riggs, 14 Gray, 376 ; Burge v. State,
62 Ga. 170. Contra, Callahan v. State,
41 Tex. 439 (theft from a house);
Com. V. Lester, 129 Mass. 101 ; People
V. Honeyman, 8 Den. 131 ; State v.
Porter, 10 Rich. (S. C.) 145; Com. v.
Laughlin, 11 Cush. 598.
2Blackwell v. State, 30 Tex. App.
416 ; 17 S. W. Rep. 1061.
s"See Com. v. Keefe, 140 Mass. 301 ;
Weineck v. State (Neb., 1893), 51 N.
W. Rep. 807 (placing obstruction on
railroad track).
* Com. V. Purdy, 146 Mass. 138.
estate V. Libbey, 84 Me. 461.
6 King v. State, 44lLifl. 285; People
■V. Hughes, 41 Cal. 334 ; Underwood
V. State, 73 Ala. 230 ; Henley v. Com.,
1 Bush (Ky.), 11 ; State v. Gaf bery,
13 La. Ann. 365 ; State v. Taylor, 15
Kan. 420, 514; Humbard v. State, 21
Tex. App. 200 ; Lewis v. State (Ga.,
1893), 15 8. E. Rep. 697; Owens v.
State (Tex., 1893), 20 a W. Eep. 558 ;
Com. V. Morningstar, 13 Pa. Co. Ct, R.
34 ; Clements v. State, 81 Tex. App.
258; Wade v. State, 10 S. Rep. 233;
Sykes v. People (111., 1891), 33 N. E.
Rep. 391.
' Kennedy v. People, 39 N. Y. 250
State V. Humble, 34 Ma App. 343
Watzel V. State, 28 Tex. App. 533
Martin v. State, 38 id. 364 ; State v.
Bain, 43 Kan. 638 ; State v. Flack, 48
Kan. 146; Young v. State, 17 S. W.
Rep. 413 ; 30 Tex. App. 308 ; Cora. v.
Caponi, 155 Mass. 534; 30 N. E. Rep.
83; Com. v. Beckley, 8 Mete. 330
("Jr.," "Sr." or "Mrs." no part of a
name) ; State v. Best, 12 S. E. Rep.
907 ; Com. v. Gould (Mass., 1893), 33
N. E. Rep. 656 ; Rogers v. State (Ga.,
1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 205 ; State v.
44
SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE.
[§■33.
The substance and essence of homicide being the felonious
killing by means of shooting, cutting, etc., proof of a killing
in any manner that substantially conforms to the description
is suiHcient, and the details or identity of the offense need not
be precisely proved as alleged.' Thus proof of killing by
shooting with a pistol will sustain an indictment for killing
with a gun ; ^ and an averment that one was killed with a
bowie-knife is sufficiently sustained by proof that he was slain
with a butcher-knife.' An indictment for the larceny of
chickens,* a cow,'^ or of a sheep,^ or horse,' or hog,^ will be sus-
tained by proof of the larceny of any variety or sex of those
animals. But where the allegation is that bank-notes' or
promissory notes,'" greenbacks " or " money " '^ were stolen, the
proof must correspond with the allegation, and any material
variance will be fatal. But an indictment for stealing $30 in
money is sufficiently sustained by proof that three ten-dollar
bills were taken." Where one is indicted for perjury in court,
not only must the term of the court be strictly proved,'* but
Brin, 30 Minn. 522 ; Elberson v. Rich-
ards, 42 N. J. L. 70.
1 '■ In an indictment any allegation
not descriptive of the identity of the
offense which can be omitted with-
out aflteotiug the charge, and witli-
out detriment to the complaint, may
be treated as surplusage and need
not be proved." Commonwealth v.
Eowell, 146 Mass. 130.
2 Turner v. State (Ala., 1898), 18
S. Rep. 54. Proof of strangling with
a scarf is sufiScient where strangling
with the hands was alleged. Thomas
V. Com. (Ky., 1893), 20 S. W. Rep.
326 ; Rex v. Waters, 7 0. cfe P. 250.
3 Hernandez v. State, 22 S. W. Rep.
972. Cf. Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush.
331 ; Com. v. MoLaughton, 103 Mass.
460. See, also, Rodgers v. State, 50
Ala. 103; Witt v. State, 6 Cold.
(Tenn.) 5 ; State v. Smith, 33 Me. 369 ;
State V. Lautenschlager, 32 Minu.
614; State v. Kilgore, 70 Mo. 546;
State V. Fox, 25 N. J. L. 356 ; State
V. Gould, 90 N. G. 880; People v.
Holt, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 432 ; Goodwin v.
State, 12 Miss. 530. Cf. Guedel v.
People, 43 III. 330. Allegations as to
place or nature of wounds are gen-
erally immaterial. Com. v. Coy
(Mass,, 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 4; State
V. Waller, 88 Mo. 403; Nelson v.
State, 1 Tex. App. 41 ; Bryan v. State,
19 Fla. 364.
estate V. Bassett, 34 La. Ann. 1108.
s Parker v. State, 39 Ala. 865.
CMcCully's Case, 3 Lew. C. C. 273;
Reg. V. Spioer, 1 Den. C. C. 82.
'Davis V. State, 33 Tex. App. 210.
estate v. Gordet, 7 Ired. (N. C.) 210.
9 Pomei-oy v. Com., 3 Va. Cas. 343.
IK Stewart v. State, 63 Md. 412.
" State V. Collins, 72 N. C. 144.
12 Lancaster v. State, 9 Tex. App.
393.,
13 Roth T. State, 10 Tex. App. 7.
"United States v. Neal, 1 Gall 387;
Rex V. Leefe, S Campb. 134, 140.
§ 2i.] SUBSTANCE OF THE ISS0E. 45
the title of the action,' and the exact time of the day, must be
proved with, extreme particularity.^
§24. Yariance — Amendments. — "Variance in the law of
evidence may be defined as a disagreement between an allega-
tion in a pleading and the facts proved to support it which is
of such a nature that the claim made is not supported.'
In order to determine whether a material v^ariance exists,
the essential facts and principles constituting together the
proposition of law involved, and which are indispensable to
show the legal right of the pleader, must be ascertained. Hav-
ing arrived at a clear determination of the principles and facts,
everything else is mere surplusage and may be disregarded as
not needing proof.
By statute in England, and in almost all of the states of the
Union, the courts are vested with power to grant amend-
ments to the record in all cases where a variance exists be-
tween the allegations in the pleadings and the proof, on such
terms as may seem reasonable to the court, provided the
rights of neither party are prejudiced thereby.* The party
at fault will usually be required to pay the costs of the pro-
ceedings which are invalidated by the amendment.' The
1 Walker v. State (Ala., 1893), 11 matter which in point of law is es-
S. Rep. 401. Cf. Wohlgemuth v. sential to the cliarge or, claim."
United States (N. M., 1893), 30 Pac. Anderson's Law Diet. ; House v.
Bep. 854. Metcalf, 27 Conn. 63S.
2 Reg. V. Bird, 17 Cox's Cr. C. 387. * Sandford Tool Co. v. Mullen (Ind.,
As to variance in the crime of for- 1890), 37 N. E. Rep. 448 ; Dexter v.
gery, see Wilson V. State (Miss., 1893), Ivins, 133 N. Y. 986; Listman v.
13 S. Rep. 333; State v. Gryder, 44 Hickey, 65 Hun, 8; 19 N. Y. S. 880;
La. Ann. 963; Sirams v. State (Tex., Evarts v. United States M. Ace. Ins.
1893), 33 S. W. Rep. 876. Co., 61 Hun, 634; Taylor v. Arnold
3 Stephen on PI., 107, 108; House (Ky., 1893), 17 S. W. Rep. 361; Cain
V. Metcalf, 37 Conn. 638 ; Cent R Co. v. Cody (Cal., 1893), 39 Pac. Rep. 778 ;
V. Hubbard, 86 Ga. 633; Dennis v. Cargain v. Everett, 63 Hun, 630;
Spencer, 45 Minn. 350 ; Haughey v. Walton v. Jones, 7 Utah, 463 ; 37
Joyce, 41 Mo. App. 564 ; Richards v. Pac. Rep. 580 ; Denham v. Bi-yant,
Green (Ariz., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 366 ; 139 Mass. 110.
Becker v. Baumgartner (III., 1893), 33 5 Bausch v. Ingersoll, 61 Hun, 637 ;
N. E. Rep. 786; Mobile, etc. Co. v. Keeler v. Shears, 6 Wend. 540 ; Woods
George (Ala,, 1893), 10 S. Rep. 145; v. Durett, 38 Tex. 439; McClellan v.
Atkinson V. Cox (Ark., 1892), 16 S. W. Osborne, 51 Me. 118. No amend-
Rep. 134 " A disagreement between ment will be allowed which will add
the allegations and the proof in some or substitute a new cause of action
46
SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE.
[§24.
power to allow amendments is wholly discretionary, and is
usually not reviewable unless in tlie case of its manifest
abuse.^ If, iiowever, the adverse party has been actually mis-
led to his prejudice^ in maintaining the action or defense
upon its merits, the variance will be deemed material and the
court will refuse permission to amend.' The variance must
bo taken advantage of by specific objection clearly pointing ,
it out at some period before final judgment that it may re-
ceive consideration before it shall have been aided by the ver-
dict.* Though contributory negligence should be specially
pleaded, if the parties proceed to a trial of the issue on that
point in a case where defendant does not plead it, it will be
deemed waived.'
or a new defense (Wilkinson v.
Wilkinson, 59 Wis. 64 ; Ward v. Pat-
ton, 75 Ala. 207 ; Freeman v. Grant,
133 N. Y. 33 ; Tatham v. Eamey, 83
Pa. St. 120; Switzer v. Claflin, 83
Tex. 513; Shearer v. > Middleton, 88
Midi. 621 ; White t. Mass, 75 Ala.
207; Carpenter v. Huffsteller, 87 N.
C. 873 ; Snyder v. Harper, 34 W. Va.
306 ; Shenandoah V. R v. Griffitli, 76
Va. 913 : Gulp v. Steare, 47 Kan. 746 ;
Brodeck v. Hirschfield, 57 Vt. 13;
Galbreath v. Newton, 45 Mo. App.
812) ; though usually the form of the
action may be changed under 'the
statutes allowing amendments. Red-
strake v. Insurance Co., 44 N. J. Eq,
294. Cf. Moseley v. Richmond, etc.
Co., 87 Ga. 747.
1 Brady v. Casidy, 13 N. Y. S. 834;
Gormly v. Bringam, 138 N. Y. 633 ;
Bondur v. Le Bourne, 79 Me, 31 ; Greer
V. Covington (Ky., 1887), 3 S. W. Rep.
323 ; Randall v. Baird (Mich., 1887),
83 N. W. Rep. 506.
2 That a party has been prejudiced
should be shown by affidavit in the
trial court. Rideuhour v. Kansas
City, etc. Co., 102 Mo. 270.
'Zeininger v. Schnitzler, 48 Kan.
66; Hall v. Roberts, 63 Hun, 473;
Crane v. Ring, 48 Kan. 61; Crothers
V. Acock, 43 Mo. App. 318 ; Rozet v.
Harvey, 26 111. App. 558 ; Robbins v.
Diggins (Iowa, 1890), 43 N. W. Rep.
306 ; Northern P. etc. Co. v. O'Brien
(Wash., 1890), 21 Pac. Rep. 82; Chew-
acla Works v. Dismukes, 87 Ala. 344 ;
Brown v. Sullivan, 71 Tex. 470.
4 See post, % 332; Wallich v. Mor-
gan, 39 Mo. App. 469 ; Henry v. Diet-
rich, 7 N. Y. S. 505; Richards v.
Bestor, 90 Ala. 353 ; O'Conner v. De-
lany (Minn., 1893), 51 N". W. Rep.
1108 ; McCormick H. Co. v. Buraudt,
38 N. E. Rep. 588 ; Tallman v. Earley,
13 N. Y. S. 805 ; Tognini v. Kyle, 17
Nev. 209; Home Ins. Co. v. Bethel,
43 111. App. 475 ; Long v. Campbell,
37 W. Va. 665. This is provided for
by statute in many of the states.
Salmon Bank v. Leyser, 23 S. W.
Rep. 504. See Brace v. Doble (S. D.,
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 859; Upham v.
Draper (Mass., 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 3;
' Sheppard v. Newhall, 54 Fed. Rep. 306.
Variance cannot be shown on appeal.
In re Lincoln, 19 Fed. Rep. 460;
Wasatch Min. Co. v. Crescent Min.
Co., 147 U. S. 293; Perry v. Plunket,
74 Me. 338; Liddell v. Fisher, 48 Mo.
App. 449.
5 Railroad Co. v. Farmer (Ala.,
1893), 13 & Rep. 86, 89, 433.
OHAPTEK III.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE.
80. Primary and secondary evi-
dence distinguished.
31. Instruments required by law
to be in writing.
33. Disputed writings.
38. Contracts and other transac-
tions actually reduced to
writing.
34. Collateral, writings.
§ 85. Exceptions in the case of rec-
ords and appointments to
office.
Exceptions in the case of evi-
dence of general results. ,
Admissions as primary evi-
dence.
38. Photographs as primary evi-
dence.
39. Exhibition of articles in court
36.
37.
§ 30. Primary and secondary evidence distinguished. —
The rule requiring the introduction of the best evidence has
reference generally to offers of oral evidence to prove the
contents of a writing where the writing itself should be pro-
duced.^ The rule does ' not require the production of the
strongest and most convincing evidence, so that no principle
of law is violated by the production of faint or weak evi-
dence, and the withholding of that which is stronger, more
cogent and convincing, so long as both are equally original.^
But it is a natural inference, in the absence of explanatory
circumstances, that a party who is withholding the best evi-'
dence of any fact in issue does so with a wrong motive which
would be defeated by its production.' When, therefore, evi-
dence is produced that presupposes the existence of other evi-
dence to the same facts of a more original character, which is
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 82.
2 Ellsworth v. Insurance Co., 105
N. Y. 624; Anglo-Am. P. & P. Co.
V. Cannon, 31 Fed. Rep. SIS ; Rich-
ardson V. Milburn, 17 Md. 67; Mc-
Creary v. Turk, 29 Ala. 344; Wynn
V. City, etc. R. R. (Ga., 1893), 17 S. E.
Rep. 649 ; Norton v. East St. Louis, 36
111. App. 371. A party is not under
the necessity of calling a particular
witness upon the ground that his
testimony is the best evidence if he
choose to produce other evidence
equally original. N. E. Mon. Co. v.
Johnson, 144 Pa. St. 61.
8 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 83, citing
Taylor v. Riggs, 1 Pet. 591, 596 ; Minor
V. Tillotson, 7 Pet. 100. Of. Reich v.
Berdel, 130 111. 499; 11 N. E. Rep.
913.
4:8 PEIMAEY AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE. [| 3(L
more immediate, and which lies closer to the facts which are
in issue, the evidence produced will be regarded as substitu-
tionary, and, as such, will be rejected.
The principle by which the best evidence is demanded is the
basis for the common division of evidence into primary and
secondaiy.' Primary evidence of any fact may be defined as
the highest or best evidence which from the nature of the fact
in the abstract can bo procured, and which in the circum-
stances of the particular case affords the greatest certainty of
the fact or renders the probability of its existence most
apparent to the mind. It is such evidence as does not indi-
cate the existence of any other evidence which is less remote
to the facts to be proved.^ Thus the primary evidence of a
written instrument is the writing itself, and unless it be shown
that the party claiming thereunder, after a diligent search, is
unable to produce it, no other evidence of its contents will be
admitted.' So where a letter, if producible, is primary evi-
dence of any relevant fact, press copies of the letter are inad-
missible except as secondary evidence, and after the loss or
destruction of the original letter has been shown.* If a writing
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 84. * King v. Worthington, 73 111. 161 ;
2 Anderson's Law Diet. Smith v. Brown, 151 Mass. 339 ; Anglo-
3 Trimble v. Edwards, 84 Tex. 497 ; American P. & C. Co. v. Cannon, 31
19 S. W. Eep. 773 ; Isley v. Boon, Fed. Rep. 313 ; Marsh v. Hand. 35 Md,
109 N. C. 555; Carwin v. Morehead, 133; Goodrich v. Weston, 103 Mass.
51 Iowa, 99 ; Henry v. Whitaker, 83 363 ; Watkins v. Paine, 57 Ga. 50. See
Tex. 5; Daly v. Bernstein, 38 Paa §136. " The rule that a copy of a copy
Rep. 764; Blalock v. Miland, 87 Ga. is not admissible evidence is correct
573 ; Buchanan v. Wise, 34 Neb. 695 ; in itself, when properly understood
53 N. W. Rep. 168 ; Grant v. Oliver, and limited to its true sense. The
91 Cal. 158 ; Taylor on Evid. 94 rule properly applies to cases where
"Thie question whether evidence is the copy is taken from a copy, the
primary or secondary has reference original being still in existence and
to tlie nature of the case in the ab- capable of being compared with it,
stract, and not to the circunistances for then it is a second remove from
under which the party, in the partic- the original ; or where it is a copy of
ular cause on trial, may be placed, a copy of a record, the record being in
It is a distinction of law and not of existence, it is not by the law deemed
fact; referring only to the quality as high evidence as the original, for
and not to tho strength of the proof, then it is also a second remove from
Evidence which carries on its face no the record. But it is quite a difficult
indication that better remains be- question whether it applies to cases
hind is not secondary but primary." of secondary evidence where the
1 Greenl. on Evid., § 84. original is lost, or the record of it is
§31.] .'^ ' PEIMAKY AND SECONDAEY EVIDENCE. 49
is executed by all the parties in several parts or copy, each
part is primary evidence of the writing.^ But where a writing
is executed in counterpart — that is, in duplicate — each part
essentially the same as the other, but being signed by one of
the parties, it is primary evidence only against the party sign-
ing it.^ Where a number of copies are all made by printing,
lithography, photography, or by any process which will secure
exact uniformity, each is primary evidence of all the others,
though when all are from a common original, none is primary
evidence of that original.' It has been held in several cases
where the loss of the original and of a press copy of a letter
was proved, that a copy of a copy of the original was admis-
sible where its correctness as a copy was vouched for under
oath.''
§ 31. Instruments required by law to Ibe in writing. —
Oral or secondary evidence is inadmissible where the law
requires facts to be evidenced in writing, or where a party, to
substantiate his claims or the title upon which he relies, must
produce some written instrument. As examples of such writ-
ings may be instanced judicial and other public records, deeds
of conveyance and contracts not to be performed within a
year.' The requirement that such transactions should be evi-
denced by writing is usually statutory, and to ascertain its
effect and scope the statute will have to be consulted. If,
therefore, the law demands that written proof must in any
given case be produced, no oral evidence is admissible if the
writing is in existence and is under the control of the party
not deemed as high evidence as the 393 ; 1 Whart Evid., § 74 ; Lewis v.
original, or when the copy of a copy Roberts, 103 E. C. L. 29. See Ander-
is the highest proof in existence." son's Law Diet., " Counterpart."
Winn V. Patterson, 9 Pet (U. S.) 677. 3 Wharton on Evid., § 93 ; Foote v.
1 Grossman y. Grossman, 95 N. Y. Bentley, 44 N. Y. 166; Memphis, etc.
145 ; Hubbard v. Eussell, 34 Barb. Co. v. Benson, 1 Pick. 637 ; People y.
404 ; Gardner v. Eberhart, 83 III. 316 ; Williams, 64 Cal. 87 ; Ford v. Gun-
Cleveland, etc. Go. V. Perkins, 17 ningham, 87 Cal. 409.
Mich. 396; Dyer v. Fredericks, 68 < Goodrich v. Weston, 103 Mass.
Me. 173 ; State v. Gurnee, 14 Kan. 363 ; Winn v. Paterson, 9 Pet (U. S.)
Ill; Weaver v. Shipley (Ind., 1891), 663; Gracie v. Morris, 33 Ark. 415.
37 N. E. Rep. 146. See, also, 1 Gush. 189 ; 35 Md. 133 ;
2 Roe V. Davis, 7 East, 363; Anglo- 37 Conn. 555; 1 Whart Evid., §§ 90-
Amer. P. & C. Go. v. Cannon, 31 Fed. 100.
Kep. 313; Mann v, Godbold, 3 Biug. ^ See post, §§ 361-370.
4
50 PEIMAEY AND SECONDAET EVIDENCE. [§ 31.
claiming under it.^ But where a party claiming under a deed
9r other instrument required to be in writing can show to the
satisfaction of the court that it was executed, and that it was
destroyed or cannot be found after a thorough search, he may
prove its contents by secondary evidence.^
The rule above outlined is chiefly applicable in the case of
transactions which are required by the statute of frauds to be
in writing,' and to the proof of public records required by law
to be kept.^ Thus, a judgment of a court,' or the appoint-
ment of an official whose appointment is recorded,' or the nat-
uralization of an alien,'' must be shown by the production of
the record or of a certified copy thereof.
In many of the states statutory provisions exist permitting
any instrument acknowledged and recorded to be proved by
a certified copy where the original is not procurable.^ Such
a provision is of peculiar advantage to one who, not being a
party to the deed, never had it in his custody, and hence may
not be able to account for its absence ; " but it cannot be em-
ployed by a party to the deed where he could as easily pro-
duce the original instrument.'"
1 Buck V. Gage, 27 Neb. 306 ; Ever- ferred from the fact that he has voted,
son V. Mayhevsr, 85 Cal. 1 ; Poorman Keld ofBce and exercised the rights of
V. Miller, 44 Cal. 269; Whitehead v. citizenship. Such facts vcould then be
School District, 145 Pa. St 418 ; Ney relevant to show his naturalization.
V. Mumme, 66 Tex. 268 ; Louisville, Cowan v. Prowse (Ky., 1893), 19 S. W.
etc. Co. V. Orr (La., 1892), 10 S. Eep. Eep. 407 ; Boyd v. Nebraska, 13 S. Ct.
167; State v. Raid, 45 La. Ann. 163; 375; 143 U. S. 135.
Bode V. Trimmer, 83 Cal. 513 ; Bounds 8 gee posf,' §§ 134, 142c-149; Ed-
V. Little, 79 Tex. 128. wards y. Osuion, 84 Tex. 656 ; 19 S. W.
2 Eversole v. Eankin, 102 Mo. 488 ; Eep. 868 ; Saders v. Giddings, 90 Mich.
Bounds V. Little, 79 Tex. 138 ; Abele 50 ; 51 N. W. Eep. 265 ; Tevis v. Col-
V. Brewster, 58 Hun, 605. See post, Her, 84 Tex. 638 ; 19 S. W. Eep. 801.
§ 130 ; Nolan v. Pelham, 77 Ga. 262 ; It has been held that a copy of a rec-
Gayle v. Perryman (Tex., 1894), 24 ord made according to law must pre-
S. W. Eep. 850. vail over the oral testimony of a
3 See post, § 261, person who, on examining the rec-
* Childrey v. Huntington, 34 W. Va, ord, testifies that he cannot find the
457 ; Christman v. Phillips, 58 Hun, part certified. Boyce v. Auditor, 53
283 ; Nesbit v. Bendheim, 15 N. Y. S. N. W. Eep. 754 ; 90 Mich. 314.
300. 9 Frank v. Eeuter, 22 S. W. Rep.
5 See §§ 142-149. 813 ; Woods v. Bonner, 89 Tenn. 411 ;
6 Boree v. McLean, 24 Wis. 325. Kenosha Co. v. Shedd, 48 N. W. Rep.
"Bode V. Trimmer, 83 CaL 513, 933.
Where no record can be produced to •" Wilson v, Wright (Utah, 1893), 30
show naturalization, it may be in- Pao. Eep. 754.
§ 32.] PEIMAET AND SEOONDAET EVIDENCE. 51
§ 32. Disputed writings. — "Where the existence of a writing
material to the case or having an important bearing upon the
credibility of a witness is disputed, its contents cannot be shown
by the verbal testimony of witnesses. Thus where, in the case
of a civil action or a criminal prosecution based upon the
violation of a statute or municipal ordinance, it becomes nec-
essary to prove the fact of the existence of the written statute
or by-law, it cannot be done by verbal evidence.' As matter
of experience it has been found that the memory is treacher-
ous and unreliable. Aside from the temptation to commit
fraud and perjury, to prevent the commission of which this
rule has been adopted,^ which wpuld be always present if the
terms of disputed documents were allowed to be given by oral
evidence, the court has a right to see the whole document,
which may, in its entirety, possess a meaning far different
from that of any detached part. Where a witness is ques-
tioned on cross-examination as to the contents of a letter
which it is alleged he has written, with a view to impeach him
by bringing out contradictory statements contained therein, the
letter must first be read to him and he must be asked if he
has written it.' In no event would it be proper to read a por-
tion of the letter or to embody a part or all of it in an inter-
rogatory and ask the witness if he wrote a letter to that effect.*
So where the witness is examined by a commission, and in
reply to a question gives the contents of a letter without pro-
ducing it, it will be stricken out, there being no method of
obtaining the letter itself.'
The erroneous admission of parol evidence of a writing is
cured by its subsequent production ^ by the party claiming
under it or by his adversary.' A copy of an instrument may
1 Ex parte Canto, 31 Tex. App. stock v. Carnley, 4 Blatchf. C. C. 58 ;
61 ; Louisville, etc. Co. v. Dulaney, Peck v. Parchen, 53 Iowa, 46 ; Dwyer
43 III. App. 397. See post, §§ 143, v. Dunbar, 5 Wall. 318; Leese v.
143a. Clarke, 39 Cal. 664 ; Lowry v. Harris,
2 Anglo- Am. P. & C. Co. v. Cannon, 13 Minn. 255.
31 Fed. Rep. 313; Cornett v. Will- 6 Linton v. Allen, 154 Mass. 433;
iams, 30 Wall. 336. Jones v. Tallant, 90 Cal. 386 ; Avery
8 See post, § 343. v. Starbuck, 127 N. Y. 675.
4 See i)OS<, §350. 'Glover v. Thomas, 75 Tex. 506;
5 Beall v. Poole, 37 Md. 245 ; Com- Stewart v. De Loach, 86 Ga. 739.
52 PEIMAET AND SEOONDAET EVIDENCE. [§ 33.
be received to prove the contents of the writing upon con-
dition that its correctness as a copy shall subsequently be
made to appear. Any impropriety in the reception of such a
copy is cured by proof that it is a true copy of the original.^
§ 33. Contracts or other transactions actually reduced to
writing. — Where parties to a contract have reduced their
agreement to writing, the existence of the written obligation
being to a certain extent the main fact in issue, the writing
itself must be given in evidence, and oral evidence of its con-
tents will not be received unless the absence of the writing is
satisfactorily accounted for.^ Though this rule is usually in-
voked in cases where rights under a written contract are
sought to be enforced, it is equally applicable in the case of
any writing which has expressl}'^ or by implication been agreed
on by the parties as a history or record of a transaction in
which either or both were interested. So where the exami-
nation of a judgment debtor in supplementary proceedings was
taken in writing and signed by him, oral evidence to prove
what he said is inadmissible.'
In the case of a written contract it is fair to infer that, the
parties having embodied their transactions in writing, the
writing will contain the final fo^m which their dealings may
have assumed, and, having given and accepted written evi-
dence of a contractual relationship, they are compelled to
1 Kendrick v. Latham, 6 S. Rep. shown to be in existence but beyond
871 ; 25 Fla. 819. After a witness the jurisdiction njay be shown by
has been allowed without objection secondary evidence (Thomson-Hous-
to jgive oral evidence of the contents ton El. Co. v. Palmer (Minn., 1890),
of a writing which he could have 53 N. W. Rep. 1187; Tenn. etc. Co.
produced as the best evidence, any v. Danforth (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep.
objection to a question put to him to 51 ; Missouri, etc. Co. v. German, 84
ascertain his purpose in making it or Tex. 141) ; as by a letter-press copy,
to any relevant question comes too Smith v. Traders" Bank, 83 Tex. 368.
late. See post, §§ 126, 130, 133, 148, 149.
2Lott V. King, 79 Tex. 293; Mem- SKain v. Larkin, 131 N. T. 800.
phis, etc. Co. v. Benson, 1 Pick. 637 ; Nor can an employee of a commer-
Pendery v. Crescent, 21 La. Ann, 410 ; cial agency give oral evidence of a
Kleiman v. Geiselman, 45 Mo. App. merchant's credit or rating where
497: Lewis v. Hadraon, 56 Ala. 186; such facts are recorded in books kept
Steele v. Etheridge, 15 Minn, 501 ; for that purpose and which are easily
Taussig V. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 409; accessibly. Deere v. Bagley, 80 Iowa,
Stebbins v. Duncan, 108 U. S. 43. 197; 45 N. W. Rep. 557.
The contents of writings which are
§ 33.] PEIMAET AKD SECONDAET EVIDENCE. 53
abide by their action and are not allowed to substitute evi-
dence of a verbal understanding in its place.^ So it is said
that here the writing is not collateral but is of the essence of
the contract.^
In an action to recover rent or wages, if plaintiff relies upon
a written lease or contract of hiring, he must produce it or
account for its absence ; for the amount due can only be prop-
erly ascertained by an examination of the terms of the con-
tract as they are contained in the writing.' On the other
hand, where the relationship of landlord and tenant, or of
master and servant, is the sole fact in issue, then, while it
could be readily proved by the production of a written con-
tract by which it was known to have been created, yet this is
not indispensable.^
"Where the facts in issue are not the relative rights and
duties of the parties under the written instrument, but some
fact collateral to the writing, the production of the instru-
ment as primary evidence of that fact is not necessary, and
the fact in issue may be proved by parol evidence under the
rule that if such evidence is as near the fact to be proved as
written evidence, then both are primary evidence of that fact.'
So where the contents of a' telegram or letter are essential in
determining the rights of the parties, it must be produced as
primary evidence of those rights. But where the Independent
fact in issue and to be proved is only that a letter or telegram
purporting to have been sent was actually sent or received,
the writing need not be produced.^ In the case of telegraphic
V
1 See post, § 205. legher v. Insurance Co., 30 W. N. C.
n Greenl. on Kyid., § 87. 105; Philips v. Huntington, 35 W.
3 State V. New York, etc. Co. (N. Y., Va. 406.
1890), 8 Atl. Rep. 290. ' Thus, where the question involved
^File V. Springel, 133 Ind. 313; was the rental value of premises in a
Martin v. Bowie (S. C, 1893), 15 S. E. suit to recover compensation for the
Rep. 736. So the owner of real or condemnation under the right of
personal property will not be re- eminent domain, the production of
quired to produce a writing by which the lease in writing is not necessary,
the ownership became vested in him, but the rental value may be proved
but may testify to the fact of owner- by verbal evidence from tenants,
ship where he does not base his Griswold v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co.,
claim on a, writing and where the 14 Daly, 484.
fact of ownership is collateral. Gal- 6 Conner v. State, 23 Tex. App. 378 ;
54 PEIMAET AND SECONDAET EVIDENCE. ' ' [§ 35.
dispatches, where the receiver of the dispatch is the employer
of the company, the original is the vpriting delivered to the
company's operator by the sender. But where the company
is the agent of the sender, then the original is the written
message which is delivered to the addressee.'
§ 35. Collateral writings. — In circmnstances where the
writing has no clear and direct bearing upon or connection
with the point in issue or any relevancy to it, but is only col-
lateral, no objection exists to introducing oral or second-
ary evidence of its contents. Thus, a report of an accident
made by a witness as part of his duty need not be accounted
for to render his oral testimony admissible.^ So, too, in an
action on contract, a written offer by one party which has
not been accepted by the other may be proved by parol.'
An oral communication accompanying a written transaction
and having the same significance and effect may be shown
orally as independent evidence.* So payment may be shown
Holcombe v. State, S8 Ga. 66 ; West- St 87 ; Pickett v. Abney- (Tex., 1893),
ern Union Tel. Co. v. Cline (Ind., 19 S. W. Rep. 859 ; Supples v. Lewis,
1894), 35 N. E. Rep. 564. 87 Conn. 568 ; Tuckwood v. Haw-
1 Thorp V. Philbin, 2 N. Y. S. 733; thorn, 30 N.. W. Rep. 705; 67 Wis.
Utley V. Donaldson, 94 XJ. S. 29; -326; Ward v. Busack, 46 Wis. 407;
Saveland v. Green, 40 Wis. 481 ; Will- Bowen v. Bank, 18 N. Y. Supr. Ct. '
iams V. Breokell, 87 Miss. 683 ; Magie 226. A parent may testify orally to
V. Herman (Minn., 1892), 52 N. W. the birth of a child, as the entry in a
Rep. 909 ; Anheuser-Busch v. Hut- family bible is not the best evidence,
macher, 127 111. 657 ; Durkee v. Rail- State v. Woods (Kan., 1892), 30 Pac.
road Co., 29 Vt. 127 ; Western Union Rep. 520 ; Dobson r. Cathron, 84 S. C.
Tel. Co. V. Shatter, 71 Ga. 760 ; Trevor 518. If the action is not to enforce
V.Wood, 36 N. Y. 307; Godwin v. the contract itself or to recover dam-
Francis, 1 L. R. C. P. 298 ; Wilson v. ages for its breach, but of the nature
Railroad Co., 81 Minn. 481. Under of replevin or an action of claim and
exceptional circumstances, as where delivery to obtain possession of the
the original telegram has been lost, instrument itself, the plaintiff is ab-
it has been held that its contents solved both from producing the
may be shown orally where no writ- paper or accounting for its absence,
ing or copy whatever exists. Terre Ross v. Bruce, 1 Day (Conn.), 100 ; Peo-
Haute, etc. Co. v. Stockwell, 118 Ind. pie v. Holbrook, 18 Johns. 90, cited in
102. Of. McCormick V. Joseph, 83 Ala. 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 88 ; Pritchard v.
401; Prather V. Wilkins, 68 Tex. 187. Norwood, 155 Mass. 589; 30 N. E-
2 Jacksonville, etc. Co. v. Wellman, Rep. 80.
7 S. Rep. 845. Cf. Daniels v. Smith, < See post, § 213 ; Cramer v. Shriner,
180 N. Y. 696. 18 Md. 140 ; File v. Springel, 182 Ind.
3 Schoenberger v. Hackman, 87 Pa. 813.
§ 36.] PEIMAET AND SECONDAKT ETIDENCE. 65
by evidence of the tender and acceptance, though a written
receipt has been given ; ^ and an oral demand may be proved
though a written demand has been made.^ So in an action to
recover for delay in completing a building, the owner may
show he has leased it without producing the lease, though it
was in writing.'
A certificate, parish register, transcript of a public record
or other writing is not the best evidence of the existence of
the marriage relation, eveii though it has been declared by
statute to be prei5umptive evidence of that fact.* Though a
certificate which is known to exist is not produced, the mar-
riage may be proved by other evidence equally primary and
original. Thus it may be shown by the witnesses who were
present when it was solemnized, by the declarations or ad-
missions of the parties, whether against interest or forming a
part of the res gestm, or it may be inferred or presumed from
reputation' combined with cohabitation and other circum-
stances and the conduct of the parties.^
§ 36, Exceptions in the case of records and appointments
to office. — Public records of QVQvy sort, from the general in-
convenience which would result from their removal from the
usual places of custody, may be proved by a duly authenti-
cated or certified copy or transcript.' The courts in recent
times have shown every disposition to extend this rule, and it
has been applied to the books of private corporations where
it was very inconvenient to produce them ; ' but in such cases
a reasonable effort must be shown to have been made to ob-
tain possession of the original.' Where a statutory mode of
iSee^osf, § 311; Coonrad v. Mad- 6 in re Wallace, 25 Atl. Rep. 360;
den, 136 Ind. 197 ; Kingsbury v. 49 N. J. Eq. 539 ; Baily v. State (Neb.,
Moses, 45 N. H. 333 ; Wolf v. Foster, 1894), 55 N. W. Rep. 341 ; In re Drink-
13 Kan. 116 ; Van Bokkelen v. Ber- house, 34 Atl. Rep. 1083 ; 151 Pa. St.
dell, 130 N. Y. 141. Of. contra. Steed 394 ; Arnold v. Cheseborough, 46
V. Knowles (Ala., 1893), IS S. Rep. 75. Fed. Rep. 700 ; United States v. Ama-
2 Smith V. Young, 1 Campb. 439. dor (N. M., 1893), 37 Pac. Rep. 388;
C/. Wollner v. Lehman (Ala., 1888), In re Hamilton, 13 N. Y. S. 708;
4 S. Rep. 643 ; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Col- Smith v. Smith, 52 N. J. L. 307 ; In re
lins, 45 Kan. 88. Gall, 9 N. Y. S. 436.
3 Consaul v. Sheldon, 35 Neb. 347. '§§ 143, 146-150.
Cf. Schurtz V. Kerkow, 85 Cal. 277. s Fox v. Baltimore, etc. Co., 34 W.
i Com. V. Dill, 156 Mass. 336. Va. 466.
* See § 114. s Bourck v. Miller, 36 Pac. Eep. 861.
56 PEIMAET AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE. [§ 36.
proving a record by a certified copy is established, it cannot
be proven by parol.i It has also been held that, where the
records are lost, the loss and their contents may be shown by
the testimony of a person having actual knowledge thereof.'
Based upon the inconvenience entailed in compelling their
production and their general notoriety, it has been repeatedly
held that oral evidence may be given of the contents of reso-
lutions passed at public meetings and of the inscriptions upon
banners or flags used in public parades.'
Another exception to the rule requiring the production of
written as the best evidence occurs in cases where a party is
called upon to prove the validity of the appointment of a
public officer. The writing by which the ofiicer was appointed
need not generally be produced ; but on proof that the public
ofiicial has acted notoriously as such, he will be presumed, in
collateral proceedings at least, to have been legally and prop-
erly appointed, and this presumption will obtain until* the
contrary shall be made to appear.^ It is of no importance in
what manner the question arises, or whether the officer be a
party to the action, for it is a general principle that so far as
his relations toward the public are concerned the appointment
and tenure of a de facto official are prima facie as valid as
those of an officer dejure?
The true basis for the admission of oral evidence or certi-
fied copies of the contents of records being the inconvenience
which would ensue if their actual production were required,
it follows that monuments, natural or artificial, used to mark
1 Roberts v. Connelle, 71 Tex. 11 ; 8 46 N. "W. Rep. 872 ; Shiver v. Bentley,
S. W. Rep. 626 ; Kentzler v. Kentzler, 78 Ga. 537 ; 3 S. E. Rep. 770 ; Burke
3 Wash. 166. v. Cutler (Iowa, 1890), 43 N. W. Rep.
2 Cilley V. Van Patten (Mich., 1888), 204. That a commission is only
35 N. W. Rep. 831; 69 Mich. 400; prima facie evidence of title, see
Richards' Appeal (Pa., 1888), 15 Atl. State v. Peel (Ind., 1890), 34 N. E.
Rep. 903 ; TurnbuU v. Richardson, 69 Rep. 440. Contra, Webb Co. v.
Mich. 400; 4 S. Rep. 613. Gonzales (Tex, 1889), 6 S. W. Rep.
3 Rex V. Hunt, 3 B. & A. 566 ; Sher- 781.
idan's Case, 31 How. St Tr. 673. 5 Com. v. Kane, 108 Mass. 433;
< North V. People, 28 N. E. Rep. Woolsey v. Roundout, 4 Abb. (N. Y.)
966; Wilcox v. Smith, 5 Wend. 331; App. Dec. 172; Cromer v. Bornest,,
Plymouth v. Painter, 17 Conn. 585; 27 S.C. 436; 3 S. E. Rep. 849; New
East Tenn. etc. Co. v. Davis, 8 S. Portland v. King, 55 Me. 173.
Rep. 349; State v. Row (Iowa, 1893),
§ ST.] PEIMAEY AND SECONDAEY EVIDENOB. 57
the boundaries of land, mural tablets, gravestones and similar
bulky articles need not be produced in court for the purpose
of proving the inscriptions upon them. So the oral evidence
of the surveyor who has surveyed land is admissible, not only
to show the original location of a boundary line,^ and the po-
sition of the monuments by which it was settled, even when
the monuments have been destroyed,^ but his testimony is
also admissible, from necessity, of the marks which were
blazed upon the trees along the boundary line.' But by
United States statutes, section 2396, the field-notes and plats
of the original surveyor are made primary evidence of the
original boundary of public lands.
§ 37. Exception in the case of general results. — To pre-
vent the time of the court from being unduly occupied in the ex-
amination of evidence consisting of numerous and bulky books
and papers in order to prove a single fact or circumstance, the
production of such voluminous writings may be dispensed with,
and a witness may state verbally the general result of his ex-
amination of books or written instruments made out of court.
Here it should be noted the witness is not asked to testify to
the contents of the writings. He is asked to give primary
evidence of an independent fact within his personal knowledge
which he has ascertained by the use of his own powers of ob-
servation.* Thus an expert who has examined the books of
account bearing upon the facts in issue may testify that a cer-
tain general balance is due thereon ; * and where an issue of
bankruptcy or insolvency is concerned, the general result of
an exaniination of the books and securities of the debtor may
be stated without their actual production in court." Bat a
J Sheetz v. Sweeney, 26 N. E. Eep. if the books are themselves in evi-
648. dence, it is not error to permit an
2 Bohrer v. Lange, 44 Minn. 281. expert book-keeper who has ex-
' Ayers v. Watson, 137 TJ. S. 584. amined them to state the result of
* Schroeder v. Fry, 14 N. Y. S. 71 ; his examination on the witness stand.
Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. (U. S.) Culver v. Marks, 132 Ind. 554; 22
136 ; Boston, -^tc. Co. v. Bana, 1 Gray N. E. Rep. 1086.
(Mass.), 83; Holbrook v. Jackson, 7 6 Culver v. Marks, 122 Ind. 554;
Cush. 136 ; Stocking v. St. Paul Trust Wolford v. Farnhara, 47 Minn. 95.
Co., 39 Minn. 40; 40 N. W. Rep. 365. « Meyer v. Sefton, 2 Stark. 274. A
Contra, Fox v. Baltimore, etc. Co., 12 debtor's liabilities can be proved by
S. E. Eep. 757 ; 34 W. Va. 466 ; McCall the verbal evidence of his creditors
V. Moscowitz, 14 Daly, 16. A fortiori without producing any written evi-
5 8 , PEIMAET AND SECONDAET EVIDENCE. [§ 38.
witness will not be permitted to testify to the single fact that
a certain sale had not been made where he learns that fact
only from an examination of the plaintiff's books, unless the
books are also produced.'
§ 38. Admissious as primary evidence. — As to whether a
party's admission of the existence and contents of a writing will
render unnecessary notice to him to produce it, and whether
his admission can be used against him as secondary evidence
of the contents of the writing, the cases are divided. The ex-
ecution of a deed or other attested instrument must be proved
when it is produced, though the grantor, while denying its
execution, may have admitted all its statements of fact.^ If
the existence or contents of a deed or other instrument which
is not produced be in issue, it has been held that the admis-
sion of the party claiming under it or of a party holding under
him is primary evidence of the truth of any fact which is re-
cited therein.' But there are decisions which sustain the con-
trary proposition ; * and in any event the admission of the party
ought to be rejected where, instead of a statement of facts
recited in the writing, it consists of a confessio juris or opinion
of the party upon its legal operation and effect.* Where the
admission involves a statement of facts as well as a statement
of the legal effect of a writing, as where the party declared
he was " possessed of a leasehold," ^ or had " dissolved articles
of partnei'ship," ' it will be admissible as primary evidence of
the contents of the writing itself, in its entirety.*
dences of indebtedness which they 378; Edgar v. Richardson, 33 Ohio
may hold. Rutledge v. Hudson, 80 St 581 ; Cumberland Mut. Fire Ins.
Ga. 366; 5 S. E. Rep. 93. Co. v. Giltman, 48 N. J. L. 495; 7
1 Hamilton v. Northwood (Mich., Atl. Rep. 424; Wolverton v. State,
J391), 49 N. W. Rep. 37. 16 Ohio St. 173.
2Se8 posJ, § 133. 41 Greenl. on Evid., § 96, citing
3 Slatterie v. Pooley, 6 M. & W. Lawless v. Quele, 8 Ir. L. 383 ; Wei- .
664; Murray v. Gregory, 5 Wels. & landCanalv. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 480;
H. 468; Moroy v. Hoyt (Conn., 1898), Jenner v. Jolliffe, 6 Johns. 9; Has-
36 Atl. Rep. 137 ; Taylor v. Peck, 31 brouck v. Baker, 10 id. 348.
Gratt (Va.) 11; Loomis v. Wadham, sfiloxam v. Elsie, 1 C. & P. 558;
8 Gray (Mass.), 557 ; Hoefling v. Scott v. Clare, 3 Campb. 336 ; Rex v.
Hambleton (Texas, 1893), 19 S. W. Inhabitants, 3 B. & Aid. 588.
Rep. 689; Edwards v. Tracy, 63 Pa. eoigby v. Steel, 3 Campb. 115.
St. 374 ; Blackington v. Rockland, 66 ^ Doe v. Miles, 1 Stark. 181.
Me. 333; Terry v. Rodahan, 79 Ga. 8 See 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 96.
§ 38a.]
PEIMAET AND SECONDAEY EVIDENCE.
59
§ 38a. Pliotographs as primary evidence. — Photographs
are admissible as primary evidence upon the same grounds
and for the same purposes as are diagrams, maps and draw-
ings of an object or locality which is the subject of contro-
versy. Photographs have been received for ttie purpose of
describing and identifying the premises which are in litiga-
tion,' or to furnish a means of identifying persons,^ to present
visible representation of physical injuries,' to supply accurate
fao-similes of public records which could not themselves be
conveniently brought into court ; * and enlarged photographs
of disputed writings emphasizing, illustrating and making
more prominent peculiarities of handwriting have been em-
ployed by experts as standards of comparison.-' If the accu-
racy of the photograph is shown jpriTna faoie either by the
party taking it or by some other competent witness * giving
evidence that the photograph faithfully represents the object,
it should go to the jury subject to impeachment by the other
side by means of testimony tending to show its inaccuracy.'
iNies V. Broadhead, 27 N. Y. S.
53 ; Cozzens v. Higgins, 33 How. Pr.
489 ; Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 421 ;
Ayers v. Harris, 77 Tex. 108 ; Church
V. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 519 ; Locke v.
Railroad Co., 46 Iowa, 112.
2 People V. Smith, 121 N. Y. 578;
Luke V. Calhoun Co., 52 Ala, 118;
Wash. L. Ins. Co. v. Scheible, 1 W.
N. C. 369; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 46
Hun, 33 ; Udderzook v. Com., 76 Pa.
St 340: EulofE v. People, 45 N. Y.
224.
3 Franklin v. State, C9 Ga. 42.
< Leathers v. Salvor Wrecking Co.,
3 Woods, 682 ; Luco v. United States,
33 How. 541; Daly v. Maguire, 6
Blatohf. 187.
6 Rowell V. Fuller, 59 Vt. 683 ; Buz-
ardv.-McAnulty, 77 Tex. 438; Tome
V. Railroad Co., 39 Md. 90 ; Marcy v.
Barnes, 16 Gray, 163 ; Eborn v. Zim-
pleman, 47 Tex. 519 ; Foster's Will,
34 Mich. 237. See, also, Anderson's
Law Diet.; 20 Alb. L. J. 4-6; 24 id.
182-184.
6 Roosevelt v. Railroad Co., 66 Hun,
633.
' Turner v. Boston, etc. Co. (Mass.,
1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 520; Leidlein v.
Mayer (Mich., 1893), 55 N. W, Rep.
367 ; Omaha, etc. Co. v. Beeson (Neb.,
1893), 54 id. 557; Missouri, etc. Co. v.
Moore (Tex., 1891), 15 S. W. Rep. 714 ;
Kansas, etc. Co. v. Smith, 90 Ala.
25 ; Com. v. Switzer, 184 Pa. St. 388 ;
Ming V. Foote, 9 Mont. 201 ; Archer
V. N. Y., N. H. etc. Co., 106 N. Y. 603 ;
Cowley V. People, 83 N. Y. 464 ; Peo-
ple V. Buddensieok, 103 id. 500 ; Durst
V. Masters, L. R 10 Prob. Div. 373,
878 ; Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla, 256. If a
party denies that he signed an instru-
ment a photograph of which is in-
troduced, it has been held that the
testimony of a witness who is ac-
quainted with his handwriting is
not admissible to show that the
photograph accurately reproduces
his genuine signature. Buzard v.
McAnulty, 77 Tex. 438 ; 14 S. W. Rep.
138. In criminal trials a photograph
60 PEIMAEY AND 8BC0NDAET EVIDENCE. [§ 39.
But the photograph, plan or diagram must be relevant, and
its relevancy will depend on whether the scene or object
which it portrays is relevant. The question of relevancy as
distinct from the correctness of the photograph is for the
judge exclusively, and is to be determined upon the same con-
siderations which govern him where the relevancy of any sort
of evidence is concerned.'
Upon the same ground that photographs, maps and plans
have been admitted in evidence, pencil or pen-.and-ink sketches
will be received to identify or explain localities. Their accu-
racy ought, however, to be shown by the testimony of the
person who made them, or some other competent witness, stat-
ing under oath that of his own knowledge and observation
they faithfully represent the object depicted.^
§ 39. Exhibition of articles in court. — An article the
relevancy of which has been shown by being identified with
the subject-matter of the issue may be exhibited to the jury
in the court-room to enable them to understand the evidence
or to realize more fully its force and cogency. Thus the dis-
trict attorney has been permitted to exhibit to the jury an
instrument with which it is alleged an abortion was commit-
ted," or a pistol or other weapon or article with which a homi-
cide has been committed, and a witness will be allowed to ex-
of the defendant taken shortly after 111. 474. The relevancy of photo-
or prior to his arrest is admissible to graphs is largely in the discretion of
show his appearance on or about the court, and, unless a manifest in-
that date, particularly where the evi- justice has been done, its action will
dence of his personal appearance is not be reviewed. So even where a
contradictory. State v. Ellwood, 17 party, because of personal injuries,
R I. 763 ; Com. v. Morgan (Mass., is himself unable to be present and
1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 458. testify, it was held proper to refuse
1 Verran v. Baird, 150 Mass. 150. to receive a photograph of him made
The fact that a change had been a year before as proof of his condi-
uiade in the building which was tion at the date he was injured,
photographed does not render the though it was shown his condition
latter irrelevant if the change is not had not changed. Gilbert v. West
material. Glasier v. Hebron, 62 Hun, End St Ry. Co. (Mass., 1894), 36 N. E.
137; Pashall v. Railroad Co., 66 id. Rep. 60.
633. A photograph taken by an 2 People v. Johnson (N. Y., 1893), 35
amateur who had never visited the N. E. Rep. 604.
place before was held inadmissible in 'Com. v. Brown, 14 Gray (Mass.),
Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Monaghan, 140 419.
§ 39.] PEIMAEY AND SECONDAKY EVIDENCE. 61
plain hov7 it could have been used.' The clothing worn by the
deceased may be shown to illustrate to the jury how close
the defendant was to him when he was killed.^ Under simi-
lar circumstances the vertebra of the deceased, if properly
identiiSed, may be submitted to the inspection of the jury, an
objection that such a course is prejudicial to the accused as
calculated to excite feelings of horror in the mind of the jurors
being deemed without merit.' Portions of a body of a woman
on whom an abortion is alleged to have been committed, pre-
served in spirits, may be shown to the jury as explanatory
and illustrative of the evidence of the physician who con-
ducted the post-mortem examination.* The clothing of the
defendant may be exhibited to the jury to show that spots
thereon are blood-stains, though the article itself may have
been procured from him without his knowledge of the pur-
pose for which it was to be used.* So criminating articles
which are relevant may be shown on the trial, though they
were irregularly or illegally obtained from the defendant; °
nor does a constitutional enactment providing that no one
shall testify against himself hinder the use of the garments
or other articles belonging to the prisoner for this purpose.''
Ordinarily it is necessary that the articles exhibited should be
connected prima facie at least with the transaction in issue.
Though it has been permitted,* the propriety and justice of
1 State V. Roberts, 63 Vt. 159 ; Si- Tex. App. 203 ; People v. Knapp, 71
berry v. State (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Cal. 1 ; Abb. Cr. Brief, § 586.
Rep. 681 ; Roderiquez v. StateJ (Tex., 3 Turner v. State, 89 Tenn. 547 ;
1893), 23 S. W. Rep. 978 ; Cora. v. State v. Moxley, 103 Mo. 374.
Brown, 131 Mass. 69; Hornsby v. < Com. v. Brown, 14 Gray (Mass.),
State, 94 Ala. 55 ; State v. Grow (Mo., 419.
1893), 17 S. W. Rep. 744 : People v. s state v. Baker, 33 W. Va. 379.
Gonzales, 35 N. Y. 49 ; People v. 6 Com. v. Tibbetts (Mass., 1893), 33
Fernandez, 35 id. 49, 64; State v. N. E. Rep. 910; Gindrat v. People
Mordecai, 68 N. C. 307 ; Leonard v. (111., 1893), 37 N. E. Rep. 1085 ; Sie-
Rallway Co., 31 Oreg. 655 ; Gardiner bert v. People (III., 1893), 32 N. E.
V. People, 6 Park. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 157 ; Rep. 431. See post, §§ 197, 198.
State V. Graham, 74 N. C. 646. ' Drake v. State, 75 Ga. 413, 415 ;
2 People V. Wright (Mich., 1892), 50 State v, Ah Clung, 14 Nev. 79, 83;
N. W Rep. 793; Watkins v. State, 89 State v. Garrett, 71 N. C. 95.
Ala. 83 ; Frizzell v. State (Tex., 1891), 8 state v. Ellwood, 34 Atl. Rep.
16 S. W. Rep. 751 ; Levy v. State, 28 782 ; 17 R I. 763 ; State v. Duncan
(Mo., 1893), 23 S. W. Rep. 690.
62 PKIMAEY AND SEOONDAET EVIDENCE. [§ 39.
permitting articles such as deadly weapons, lanterns, masks
and other tools used by burglars and similar articles which
are not the articles alleged or shown by any evidence to have
been employed by the accused to be exhibited to the jury
may well be doubted. Such a custom, under the guise of il-
lustrating and explaining the evidence, is well calculated to
create prejudice in the jury.
CHAPTEE IV.
HEARSAY.
50. Definition — Grounds for its
rejection.
51. Statements to be proved as facts.
53. Expressions of bodily or mental
feeling.
53. Pedigree — Oral and written
declarations.
54. Declarations constituting a part
of the res gestce.
55. Requisites.
56. Must be illustrative and con-
nected with main transaction.
§ 57. Must be contemporaneous.
58. Entries as part of the res gestce
and made by third persons.
Entries against interest and
entries which are part of the
res gestce distinguished.
A party's own books as evi-
dence.
61. The declarations of agents when
a part of the res gestce.
62. Indorsements as part of the
res gestce.
59,
60.
§ 50. Definition — Grounds for its rejection. — The term
" hearsay," as-used in the law of evidence, signifies all evidence
which is not founded upon the personal knowledge of the
witness from whom it is elicited, and which consequently does
not depend wholly for its credibility and weight upon the
confidence which the jury may have in him.^ Its value, if
1 " Hearsay is that kind of evidence
which does not derive its value solely
from the credit to be given to the
witness himself, but rests also in part
on the veracity and competency of
some other person.'' 1 Greenl. on
Evid., § 99. "Hearsay is . . .
literally what the witness says he
heard another person say." Bouvier's
Law Diet. "Hearsay is what is
heard as rumored ; testimony not a
matter of personal knowledge with
the witness." Anderson's Law Diet
The question, Is evidence when pre-
sented hearsay or original? is one in
the exclusive province of the court.
Harter Medicine Co. v. Hopkins, 83
"Wis. 309; 53 N. W. Rep. 501. See,
also. Gross v. Moore, 68 Hun, 412 ; 255
N. Y. S. 1019 ; Brown v. Prude (Ala.,
1893), 11 S. Rep. 888 ; Dountain v. Con-
nellee (Tex., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 856 ;
Befay v. Wheeler (Wis., 1893), 53 N.
W. Rep. 1121 ; Mathis v. Pridham, 1
Tex. Civ. App. 58 ; Atchison, etc. Co.
V. Parker, 55 Fed. Rep. 595 ; Ellis v.
Whitehead (Mich., 1893), 54 N. W.
Rep. 752. Self-serving statements —
i. e., statements made out of court
by a party in his own favor — are
hearsay if not acquiesced in by the
adverse party so as to operate as ad-
missions or by way of estoppel. Whit-
ney V. Houghton, 135 Mass. 451 ; Siva
V. Wabash R. R. Co. (Mo., 1893), 21 S.
W. Rep. 915. But it is not hearsay for
a witness, whether a party or not, to
repeat on the witness stand his prior
statement made out of court Charles
V. State, 49 Ala. 332. See post, % 79.
<6i HEARSAY. [§ 50.
any, is measured by the credit to be given to some third per-
son not sworn as a witness to that fact, and consequently not
subject to cross-examination. "When the requirement is made
"that a witness can testify to those facts only of which he has
some personal knowledge,^ it is not meant that each witness
must have actual personal knowledge of the principal facts
which are in issue on the one hand, or a full knowledge of all
the details to which he is expected to testify on the other.
The utmost reasonable requirement that can be made is that he
should have an actual knowledge of the facts, not derived from
any other person's knowledge of the truth or falsity of any
transaction to which he is going to testify.^ Any statement
made by him of anything which another person has told him
as to those facts is generally hearsay and inadmissible, no
matter how worthy of credit that person would be if called
as a witness.
The utility and value of cross-examination and of the sanction
of an oath as tests of the truth of testimony being evident
from long experience, it is necessary under such circumstances
to call the person who was the witness' informant to testify
to those matters which are hearsay in the mouth of any other
person.'
1 The fact that a witness claims to 115 ; Dubois v. Perkins, 31 Oreg. 189 ;
be testifying from his own personal Orr v. Orr, 34 S. C. 375 ; Glenn v.
knowledge is not of course con- Ligett, 47 Fed. Rep. 473 ; Corwin v.
elusive. He may be self -deceived ; Morehead, 51 Iowa, 99 ; Mutual, etc.
and what he calls his personal Co. v. Tillman, 84 Tex. 31 ; 19 S. W.
knowledge may consist of mental Rep. 294; McLeod v. Lee, 17 Nev.
impressions created by circumstances 103 (declaration of decedent); Hard
collateral to the main point in issue v. Ashley, 63 Hun, 634 ; Sangster v.
or stamped uucotisciously upon his Dalton (Ark., 1890), 13 S. W. Rep.
mind by the statement of others, but 203 ; Fordyce v. McCants, 51 Ark.
which from lapse of time and his 509; Fitzgerald v. Williams, 14fl
unshaken belief in their truth he Mass. 463; Harris v. Railroad, 78
now regards as acquired through his Ga. 525 ; Tarbox v. Shuegrue, 36
own powers of observation. Lamar Kan. 235 ; Armstrong v. Ackley, 71
V. Pearce (Ga., 1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 92. Iowa, 76 ; Alabama, etc. R Co. v. Ar-
2 West V. Home Ins. Co., 18 Fed. nold (Ala.), 2 S. Rep. 837 ; East Tenn.,
Rep. 633. V. & G. R. Co. v. Maloy, 77 Ga. 237;
3 1 Greenl. on Evid., g§ 98, 134, 163 ; Wagoner v. Ruply, 69 Tex. 700 ; 111.
Bacon v. Hanna, 63 Hun, 635 ; Hun- Cent. R R Co. v. Ruffin (Miss., 1888),
ter V. Lanius, 18 S. W. Rep. 301 ; 83 3 S. Rep. 578 ; Kaufman v. Springer,
Tex. 677 ; Wallace v. Story, 139 Mass. 38 Kan. 730 ; Louisville, etc Co. v.
§ 50.] HEARSAY. 65
Hearsay evidence is not confined to the repetition of that
which is orally communicated. If information contained in
a writing addressed to or read by him is given in evidence,
not to prove the existence or to show the contents of the writ-
ing, but as having a direct bearing upon some fact in issue,
then such evidence is hearsay.
The rule requiring the production of the best evidence of
a,nj transaction is founded upon the principle that oral evi-
dence of the contents of a writing is substitutionary and its
introduction indicative of better existing evidence which is
withheld. Th6 withholding, retention or suppression of better
or more original evidence furnishes only a partial reason for the
rejection of hearsay, for hearsay evidence is intrinsically and
peculiarly weak at its inception. As applied to writings, the
rule requiring the production of the best evidence and the rule
rejecting hearsay are frequently confused.' This fact, taken
in connection with the vague and loose meaning of the word
" hearsay," as it is used, renders some further elucidation nec-
essary. For example, suppose the existence, but not the con-
tents, of a writing is inquired into. A witness may testify that
he has seen it, and may further relate what disposition has
been made of it.^ Such evidence, as we shall see later, is not
secondary, nor is it hearsay, but is original primary evidence
of an independent fact — i. e., the visual existence of the writ-
ing.' If, however, the witness is questioned as to the con-
tents of a writing, its production is indispensable by the rule
requiring the best evidence of its contents, and oral evidence
will not be rec'eived until its absence is satisfactorily accounted
for.* But if the witness in his evidence testifies as to some
particular matter of fact — as, for example, the injury to the
plaintiff, the knowledge of which has come to him not through
his personal observation and presence, but from the perusal of
a letter written by some third person, — then his evidence is
Wood, 113 Ind. 544 ; St Louis v. ' See ante, § 30 et seq.
Arnot, 94 Mo. 275; 7 S. W. Eep. 15; 2 Ramsey v. Hurley, 73 Tex. 194;
Eddy V. McCall (Mich., 1888), 39 N. Neland v. Murphy, 78 Wis. 336;
W. Eep. 734;' Insurance Co. v. Lane, State v. Sterling, 41 La. Ann. 679,
46 N. J. Eq. 816 ; Central E. Co. v. ' See § 51.
Kent, 84 Ga. 351 ; Doyle v. Church, < See post, § 130.
118 N. Y. 678 ; Nixon v. McKinney,
105 N. C. 23.
5
66 HEARSAY. [§ 51.
hearsay and inadmissible. Under such circumstances the writer
of the letter should be called to witness to the fact in issue.
Thus, where it was sought to hold defendant responsible for
money left with him to be forwarded to A., the witness was
not permitted to testify that A. had never received it, his only
source of knowledge being letters received from A.'
The intervention of an interpreter in an interview in which
the witness participated, and through whom the witness ac-
quired his information, does not render his knowledge of what
was said hearsay, as the interpreter is regarded as the agent
of both parties for the time being.^
The rule by the operation of which hearsay evidence is re-
jected because of the facility for the commission of fraud and
perjury which would result from its acceptance being of gen-
eral application, it becomes of great importance to distinguish
carefully between evidence which is hearsay and that which
may be considered original. No general rule of differentia-
tion can be laid down. Whether evidence is original or hear-
say depends of course to a very large extent upon the nature
of the facts themselves — that is, whether they are within the
personal knowledge of the witness or not. But much depends
upon the circumstances of each particular case and upon the
facts which are sought to be proved ; so that evidence which
consists of the language of a third person and which under
some circumstances would be rejected as hearsay, will, in dif-
ferent circumstances, be admitted as original. The various
cases in which declarations or writings of third parties not
produced as witnesses are original evidence will now be con-
sidered.
§51. Statements to be proved as facts. — In cases where
the truth or falsity of the statement made is immaterial, but
the main question is whether the statement, information or
advice was actually given or made, a witness may testify con-
cerning statements made by third persons out of court who
1 Goldberg v. Wolff, 10 N. Y. S. 355. See, also, post, §§ 77, 331a. But
544. see, contra, Territory v. Big Knot
2 State V. Hamilton, 8 S. Eep. 304; on Head, 6 Mont 248; 11 Pac. Rep.
43 La. Ann. 1204 ; Wise v. Newatney, 670. See, also, 1 Whart on Evid.,
26 Neb. 88 ; 42 N. W. Eep. 339 ; Com. § 193.
V. Vose (Mass., 1893), 33 N. E. Eep.
§ 51.J HEAESAT. 67
are not introduced as witnesses. Thus, if it is necessary to
ascertain the motives which actuated a person's conduct, the
information upon which he relied is important, and in sub-
stantiating the prudence, legality or good faitl\ with which he
claims to have acted he may introduce evidence of what ad-
vice or information he received. For this reason, in a suit for
malicious prosecution, the advice or information which de-
fendant acted upon may be given in evidence as original evi-
dence tending to prove the existence of a probable cause.' But
it has been held that the declaration of one not a party to the
suit is not admissible to show the declarant's intention.^ So,
too, where the question of a person's sanity is involved, oral
and written communications had with the alleged lunatic are
admissible to show how his mental condition was regarded
by those having dealings with him, but only in a case where
the communications, being connected with some act done by
him, have become a part of the res gestm}
To prove the fact of bankruptcy, or that a bankrupt has
absconded, a witness may testify to what the bankrupt said
about his financial condition or his future intentions.* The
same rule is applicable to the statement made to persons en-
deavoring to serve civil process where one is alleged to be
avoiding its service.* So language used by a person, either
contemporaneous with or shortly before or after a certain act,
is admissible to show the condition of his mind, i. e., its weak-
ness or strength at the time of the act. But such declara-
tions are not admissible to show his intention where the law
1 Leahey v. Marsh, 155 Pa St. 458 ; person are always admissible to
McClafferty v. Phelp, 151 id. 86 ; prove or to rebut the fraudulent ia-
Com. V. Felch, 133 Mass. 33 ; Finn v. tent. O'Hare v. Duckworth, 4 Wash.
Frink, 84 Me. 261 ; Mark v. Hastings St. 470 ; Ferbrache v. Martin (Idaho,
(Ala., 1893), 18 S. Rep. 397; Owens v. 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 353; Snyder t.
State, 74 Ala. 401 ; Hahn v. Schmidt, Free (Mo., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 847 ;
64 Cal. 384 ; Atkins v. State, 69 Ga. Hicks v. Sharp, 89 Ga. 311.
595; Johnson V. Miller, 83 Iowa, 693. ^o'Hare v. Duckworth, 4 Wash.
2 North Stonington v. Stonin^ton, St. 470 ; State v. Penn, 13 Bank. Reg.
31 Conn. 413. 464.
3 Paine v. Aldrich, 30 N. E. Rep. ' Sumner v. Williams, 5 Mass. 144 ;
735; 183N.Y. 544. So where fraud- Buswellv. Luicks, 8 Daly (N. Y.), 518.
ulent intent is in issue, the declara- Cf. Werner v. Com., 80 Ky. 887.
tions of a party or of some third
68
HEAESAT.
[§62.
requires intention to be manifested in writing as in the case
of wills.'
So, generally, if the only fact in issue is whether a certain
statement was or was not made by some third person, it is
not absolutely necessary to call that person, but the substance
of his language may be given in evidence by one who was
present and heard it.^
§ 52. Expressions of bodily or mental feeling. — Oral ex-
pressions of mental or physical sensations, where the declar-
ant's condition of body or mind is material, may be given in
evidence by a person who has heard them. The fact primar-
ily in issue under such circumstances is whether the exclama-
tions indicating pain, anger, malice or other passion were
uttered, and to this fact the witness may testify, leaving all
inquiry whether the feelings were feigned or real for the jury
to determine. So ejaculations indicating the existence of
pain ' or malice * may be testified to by any one who heard
' Canada's Appeal, 47 Conn. 450 ;
Mooney v. Olsen, 33 Kan. 69 ; Maye
V. Bradlee, 127 Mass. 414; Bush v.
Bush, 87 Mo. 480; Tingly v. Cowgill,
48 Mo. 301 ; Rusling v. Rusling, 36
N. J. Eq. 736 ; Marx v. McGlynn, 88
N. Y. 357; Herster v. Herster, 133
Pa. St. 339 ; Conway v. Vizzard, 133
Ind. 366 ; Potter v. Baldwin, 133 Mass.
437; Shailer v. Bumstead, 99 Mass.
112; Gibson v. Gibson, 34 Mo. 337;
Middleditoh v. Williams, 45 N. J. Eq.
736. Where undue influence is al-
leged in the execution of a will, the
declarations of the testator are ad-
missible to show the state of his mind
and his feelings towards his relatives
and the beneficiaries under the will.
Jones V. Roberts, 37 Mo. App. 163 ;
Gardner v. Frieze, 16 R. I. 640. See
post, §§ 208, 233.
'^ Phelps V. Foot, 1 Conn. 887.
'Bloomington v. Osterlee, 139 III.
130 ; Bennett v. Northern Pao. R. R.
Co. (N. D., 1893), 49 N. W. Rep. 408;
Lacas v. Detroit City R. Co. (Mich.,
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 745 ; Sturgeon v.
Sturgeon (Ind., 1893), 30 N. E. Rep.
805 ; Holly v. Bennett, 46 Minn. 386 :
Blair v. Madison, 81 Iowa, 313 ; Smith
V. Dittman, 16 Daly, 437; Grand
Eapids, etc. Co. v. Huntley, 38 Mich.
537 ; Insurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall.
(U. S.) 397; Rogers v. Grain, 30 Tex.
284 ; Sanders v. Reister, 1 Dak. Ter.
151; Towle v. Blake, 43 N. H. 92;
Hanna v. Hanna (Tex., 1893), 21 S. W.
Rep. 720 ; Butler v. Man. Ry. Co., 24
N. Y. S. 143; Hatch v. Fuller, 131
Mass. 574; Livingston's Case, 14
Gratt (Va.) 593 ; Stevenson v. State,
69 Ga. 68.
< State v. Crawfoot (Mo., 1893), 33
S. W. Rep. 371 ; Hall v. State, 31 Tex.
Crim. Rep. 565 ; Gibson V. State, 23 Tex.
414 ; State v. Corcoran, 38 La. Ann.
949; Harrison v. State, 79 Ala. 29;
Newton v. State, 42 La. Ann. 33 ; Pit-
man v. State, 23 Ark. 354; State v.
Bradley, 64 Vt. 468 ; State v. Gainer
(Iowa, 1892), 50 N. W. Rep. 947;
State V. Hoyt, 46 Conn. 830 ; Le Beau
V. People, 34 N. Y. 333 ; State v. Har-
rod, 102 Mo. 590 ; State v. Wentworth,
§52.]
HEAESAY.
69
them.' This principle is applied in an action brought by a
wife to recover damages for the alienation of her husband's
affections. The husband's declarations or letters, addressed
to the wife or to third persons, dating prior to the alleged
• perpetration of the wrong by defendant, are admissible as
original evidence of the fact that before the alienation she
possessed his affection.^
The statements or declarations of a sick person, or of one
who has met with an accident, regarding his present pain and
suffering, and the nature, present symptoms and existing
effects of the illness or accident from which he is suffering,
are admissible as original evidence.' When the declarations
of the sick person are merely narrative of prior details con-
nected with his illness, they will generally be inadmissible
whether made to a physician or to some other person, unless,
being connected with the patient's present condition, they are
considered a part of the res gestae.^
37 N. H. 196 ; Pete v. State, 44 La.
Ann. 14; Dixon v. State, 13 Fla.
636; Hardee v. State, 31 Tex. Crim.
Rep. 289 ; Everett v. State, 63 Ga. 65 ;
Riggs V. State, 30 Miss. 635 ; School- .
craft V. People, 117 111. 371 ; State v.
Sullivan, 51 Iowa, 143; State v.
Hymer,''l5 Nev. 49. See post, § 189.
1 On this ground the threats made
by a person charged with homicide
are, if not too remote, admitted to
show his malice or premeditation.
2Yundt V. Hartranft, 41 111. 9;
Rounds v. Rounds, 64 Vt. 433 ; Willis
T. Barnard, 8 Bing. 376 ; Gilchrist v.
Bale, 8 Watts, 355 ; Wilton v. Web-
ster, 7 G^r. & P. 198; Coleman v.
White, 43 Ind. 439; Bigoonette v.
Paulefc, 134 Mass. 133.
3 Helton V. Alabama M. Ry. Co.
(Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 376; Hewett
V. Eisenbart (Neb., 1893), 55 N. W.
Rep. 353; Bush v. Barnett, 96 Cal.
803 ; International, etc. Co. v. Kuehn
(Texas, 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 58;
Sohuler v. Third Ave. R. Co., 1 Misc.
R. 351 ; Brusch v. St. Paul City Ry.
Co. (Minn., 1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 57;
Newson v. Dodson, 61 Texas, 91 ; Fay
V. Harlan, 128 Mass. 244; Earl v.
Tupper, 45 Vt. 275; Matteson v. N.
Y. & R. R Co., 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 364;
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Spilker (Ind.,
1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 280 ; State v.
Howard, 33 Vt. 380 ; Taylor v. Rail-
road Co., 48 N. H. 809 ; Gray v. Mc-
Laughlin, 26 Iowa, 279; Blooming-
ton V. Osterle,- 139 111. 120 ; Bennett
V. Railroad Co., 2 N. D. 112; Lacas
V. Railroad Co., 93 Mich. 412.
*Roosa V. Boston Loan Qo., 132
Mass. 439 ; Jones v. Portland, 88 Mich.
598 ; Collins v. Waters, 54 111. 485 ;
Davidson v. Cornell, 132 N. Y. 228 ;
Smith V. State, 53 Ala. 486 ; Ashland
V. Marlborough, 99 id. 47 ; Mayo v.
Wright, 63 Mich. 40 ; Illinois Central
R R. Co. V. Sutton, 43 id. 438 ; Lacas
V. Railroad Co., 93 Mich. 413 ; Barber
V. Miriam, 11 Allen (Mass.), 322;
Schuler v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 20
N. Y. S. 683; Holly v. Bennett, 46
Minn. 486 ; Blair v. Madison, 81 Iowa,
313. Of. post, §§ 188-190.
70 HEAESAT. [§ 52.
There are many cases, however, which sustain a different
rule as regards declarations descriptive of past events. Thus,
where a physician is called to diagnose the disease or deter-
mine the nature of the accidental injury with a view to the
proper method of treating it, or to testify as an expert, it is.
held that he may testify to language of the patient describing
his symptoms, condition, feelings and other details either
past or present. Only language which is used in the examina-
tion or treatment, or to enable the physician to testify as an
expert, is admissible.^ The admissibility of statements of
physical suffering of this sort is largely due to the necessity
of proving facts which can only become known to others
through the utterances of the sufferer himself. A scream,
a groan, or a cry of some sort, is the natural expression of
intense pain in man, and testimony that a scream was heard
is always original evidence. Some of the courts seem to limit
the admissibility of testimony to mere involuntary exclama-
tions or ejaculations of pain, as screams, groans or sighs,
basing their rulings upon the fact that as the common-law
disability of a party as a witness no longer exists, the sufferer
may and should be placed upon the stand, if living, while, if
deceased, his prior suffering is immaterial, as it does not con-
stitute an element in the damages to be recovered by his rep-
resentatives.^ •
The competency of a party as a witness is purely statutory,
and the rule that statutes amendatory of or derogatory to the
common law should be strictly construed would doubtless
apply. It cannot be reasonably conceived that the legislature,
by adding to the rights of the party by making him compe-
lEquitableMut. Life Ace. Ass'n v. 139 111. 130; Pullman v. Smith, 79
McCluskey (Colo., 1893), 39 Pac. Rep. Tex. 468. Contra, Abbot v. Heath
383 J Mut. Life Ins, Co. v. Tillman, 84 (Wis., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 574; Jones
Tex. 31; 19 S. W. Rep. 394; David- v. Portland, 88 Mich. 698; Davidson
son v.'Cornell, 10 N. Y. S. 531 ; Quaife v. Cornell, 133 N. Y. 338.
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 48 "Wis. 513 ; 2 Stewart v. Everts (Wis., 1890), 44
Louisville, New Alb. & Chick R. R. N. W. Rep. 1093 ; Caldwell v. Murphy.
Co. V. Falvey, 104 Ind. 416; Cleve- 11 N. Y. 416; Reid v. N. Y. 0. R. R
land. Col., C. & Ind. R. R. Co. v. Co., 45 N. Y. 574 ; Werely v. Persons.
Newell, 104 Ind. 369; Chicago, etc. 38 N. Y. 344; Abbot v. Heath (Wis.,
Co. V. Spilker (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 574.
Rep, 380; Bloomington v. Osterle,
§ 53.] HEARSAY. 71
tent as a witness, intended by implication to abridge his
rights in another direction and deprive him of the legitimate
advantage which he had enjoyed by having his declaration of
suffering, other than mere ejaculations, rendered inadmissible.*
The fact that a victim of rape was crying,^ or made imme-
diate complaint, being material evidence of such complaint, is
admissible as original evidence,' though it seems that a witness
will not be permitted to testify to the particular facts and
details of the assault as related by the complainant,* unless the
statement is so closely connected with the commission of the
crime in time and place as to form a part of the res gestm?
§ 53. Pedigree — Oral and written declarations. — The term
•" pedigree " includes facts relating to the descent and relation-
ship of an individual, to his birth, marriage and death, and to the
dates upon which these several events occurred." The decla-
rations of third persons to such facts are receivable if the de-
clarants are deceased, if they were related to the person whose
pedigree is involved or to one from whom he is descended,
so that they would not only have adequate means of knowing
but an active interest in knowing the facts. So it was held
at an early period that the deceased declarant must have
been connected by family ties, either of marriage or blood,
with the party whose pedigree is under investigation.^
1 Hancock v. Leggett, 115 Ind. 546. ceived. State v. Jerome, 83 Iowa,
2 State V. Bedard, 36 Atl. Rep. 719. 749 ; 48 N. W. Rep. 733.
3 Johnson v. State, 21 Tex. App. 6 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 104; 1
368 ; Territory v. Godfrey, 6 Dak. 46. Whart on Evid., § 208 ; Swink v.
< Territory v. Edie (N. M., 1893), 30 French, 11 Lea, 80 ; Amer. Tr. Co. v.
Pac. Rep. 581 ; Baccio v. People, 41 Eosenagle, 77 Pa. St. 516. In Ste-
N. Y. 365; People v. O'SuUivan, 104 phen'sDig. Evid., §31, this rule is con-
N, Y. 493 ; People v. McCrea, 33 Cal. fined to cases where the pedigree is
98 ; Pepple v. Stewart (Cal., 1893), 33 directly in issue, and where the pedi-
Pac. Rep. 8. Contra, Barnes v. State, gree while relevant is merely coUat-
88 Ala. 204. If, however, the com- eral, the evidence is excluded. Whit-
plaint is too long delayed, it will not beck v. Walters, 4 C. & P. 375. This
be admissible. Richards V. State (Neb., rule, however, has not received uni-
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 1037. But con- versal support. See contra, Clark v.
tra, State v. Mulkern,- 85 Me. 106. Owens, 18 N. Y. 434 ; North Brook-
SMcMurrin v. Rigby, 80 Iowa, 322 ; field v. Warren, 16 Gray, 174.
Castillo V. State (Texas, 1893), 19 S. n Greenl. on Evid., § 103, citing
W. Rep. 893. The declarations of a Vowlesv.Young,13Ves.l40; Casey v.
child four years old have been re- O'Shaughnessy, 7 Jur. 1140; Gregory
72 HEAESAT. [§ 53.
A stricter rule is adopted in the English cases, which hold
declarant must have been legitimately related by blood to
the person whose pedigree is in question, or he or she must
have been the husband or wife of that person.^ However con-
sonant to principles of public policy this stringent rule may
seem, it is obviously inapplicable in a thinly-inhabited com-
munity whose residents are constantly changing their places
of domicile and where family connections and acquaintance
with family affairs are more or less disregarded. On this ac-
count the more liberal rule by which the declaration of any
deceased member of the family is admitted is supported by
the large majority of the American decisions.^ It is for the
judge to decide whether the person who is quoted was a mem-
ber of the family ; ' and the fact of relationship,* together with
the death of the declarant, must be shown prior to the admis-
sion of the declaration.'
This rule by which the introduction of evidence of pedigree
is permitted is not confined to oral statements. Memoranda
or entries made in family bibles or other books appertaining
to facts of family history or pedigree are admissible as decla-
rations of the person making the entries if he was a member
of the family.' So, too, declarations or recitals upon matters
V. Baugh, 4 Rand. 607 ; Kay wood v. Mooers v. Bunker, 29 N. H. 42 ; Tyler
Barnett, 3 Dev. & B. 91 ; Waldron v. v. Flanders, 57 N. H. 618 ; Kelly v.
Tuttle, 4 N. H. 371 ; Jewell v. Jewell, McGuire, 15 Ark. 555. The declara-
17 Pet. 213 ; Chapman v. Chapman, tions must have been made prior to
3 Conn. 347; Boone v. Miller, 73 the inception of the controversy,
Tex. 557. though they are not inadmissible be-
1 Smith V. Tebbitt, L. R. 1 P. & M. cause they were made to prevent it
354; Shrewsbury Peerage Case, 7 Com. v. Felchs, 132 Mass. 23; Cau-
H.L.C. 26; Hitchins v. Eardley, L. R jolle v. Ferrie, 23 N. Y. 91; Hill v..
2 P. & M. 248. Hibert, 19 W. R. 350 ; Berkely Peer-
2 Butrick v. Tilton (Mass., 1893), 39 age Case, 4 Campb. 401-417 ; Shed-
N. E. Rep. 1088; Boone v. Miller, 73 den v. Patrick, 2 Sw. & Tr. 170.
Tex. 564; Eisenlord v. Krum (N. Y., 3 Doe v. Davis, 11 Jur. 607.
1890), 37 N. E. Rep. 1024 ; Walkup v. * Thompson v. "Wolf, 8 Oreg. 454
Pratt, 5 Harr. & J. 51 ; Banertv. Day, ^Greenleaf v. Dubuque E. R Co.,
3 Wash. C. C. 243 ; Cuddy v. Brown, 30 Iowa, 301 ; Northrop v. Hale, 76
78 111. 415; Backdahl v. Lodge, 46 Me. 309.
Minn. 61; Jackson v. Cooley, 8 Johns. « Berkley Peerage Case, 4 Campb.
(N. Y.) 138 ; Jones v. Jones, 36 Md. 401, 418 ; Jackson v. Cooley, 8 Johns.
447 ; Dawson v. Mayall, 45 Minn. 408 ; 128, 131 ; Douglas v. Saunderson, 3
Lowder v. Schluter, 78 Tex. 108; Dall. 116; Carskadden v. Poorman,
§ 53.] HEAESAT. 73
of pedigree contained in family charts of pedigree or in family-
correspondence,' in wills, deeds of settlement or partition,^
pleadings ' and aflBdavits * are admissible.' The principle upon
■which this description of evidence of pedigree is admitted
being that such statements evincing the prevalent belief of those
who had the best opportunities to acquaint themselves with the
facts, it follows that inscriptions upon family monuments and
tombstones and on family portraits, being of a semi-public
nature, are peculiarly within the rule. Ifor is it necessary to
show that these inscriptions were made by a member of the
family ; for though this circumstance, in connection with the
shortness of the period which has elapsed between the event
they commemorate and the date of their erection, is strongly
corroborative of their authenticity, their public character or
the assent of the family is equivalent to proof that they repre-
sent the opinions of all its members.'
A declaration of a deceased parent as to the place of birth
of his child is not receivable, a distinction being made be-
tween the place of birth and the fact of the birth.'
Evidence of general repute which prevails in a family as to
the death,^ relationship ' or birth of one of its members, proved
10 Watts, 83 ; Watson v. Brewster, 1 L. 0. 1. Where an inscription on a
Barr, 381 ; Fulkerson v. Holmes, 117 tombstone was offered to show that
IT. S. 397, cited in 1 Greenl. on Evid., a person was not the youngest son,
§ 104. it was held inadmissible in the ab-
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 104 ; Murray sence of evidence identifying the
-0. Miluer, L. R 13 Oh. Div. 845; person buried. Gehr v. Fisher, 148
ScharfE v. Keener, 64 Pa. St. 376 ; Pa. St 311.
Pearson v. Pearson, 46 Cal. 609 ; Neal ' Union v. Plainfield, 39 Conn. 568 ;
V. Wilding, 2 Str. 1151 ; Elliott v. Pier- Tylers v. Flanders, 57 N. H. 618 ;
soil, 1 Pet. 338 ; 1 Ph. Evid., 316, 317. Wilmington v. Burlington, 4 Pick.
2 Fort v. Clarke, 1 Euss. 601. See 174; McCarty v. Deming, 4 Lans.
Jackson v. Cooley, 8 Johns. 128; Jack- 444. As matter of pedigree, a moth-
son V. Russell, 4 Wend. 548 ; Keller v. er's language disparaging the legiti-
Nutz, 5 S. & R 251 ; 1 Greenl. on macy of her child is inadmissible.
Evid., § 104. Hargrave v. Hargrave, 3 C. & K. 701.
3 Phil. & Am. on Evid., 231, 333. « Mason v. Fuller, 45 Vt. 39 ; Ander-
4 Hurst V. Jones, 1 'Wall. Jr. 373. son v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197. Cf. Wilson
5 See "Ancient Documents," § 106 ; v. Brownlee, 24 Ark. 546 ; Morton v.
Hodges V. Hodges, 106 N. C. 374. Barrett, 19 Me. 109 ; Jackson v. Bene-
6 North Brookfleld v. Warren, 16 ham, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 326; Morrill v.
Gray (Mass.), 174 ; Sowles v. Young, Foster, 33 N. H. 379 ; Primm v. Stew-
13Ves. 144; Eastman v. Martin, 19 art, 7 Tex. 178.
N. H. 153; Camoy's Peerage, 6 CI. & 9 Pierce v. Jacobs, 7 Mackey, 498;
Fin. 789 ; Shrewsbury Peerage, 7 H, Backdahl v. Lodge, 46 Minn. 61.
74 HEAESAT. [§ 54.
by the evidence of a surviving member, is admissible as a
matter of pedigree.' So a person may testify to the date of
his own birth according to reputation in his family,^ though
evidence of family reputation as to a party's age has on the
other hand been rejected.'
In the reception of traditionary evidence, caution should be
employed in view of the inherent fallibility of the human
memory, even in matters in which all men may be deemed to
have a personal interest. Error being intermixed with truth,
by dint of constant repetition and belief becomes at last in-
distinguishable from it. Though this sort of. evidence is
peculiarly subject to such disadvantages, that fact furnishes
no valid ground for its rejection ; but it remains for the jury,
under proper instructions from the court, to decide upon its
weight and sufficiency and to consider what credit to give to
the witness from whom it is elicited.*
§ 51. Declarations constituting res gestae. — It is almost
always the case that the facts or transactions which are in
issue in any judicial proceeding do not stand alone and uncon-
nected with any other facts and circumstances. In conse-
quence of the intricate and involved character of all human
affairs, the main fact, the truth of which is sought to be sub-
stantiated or overthrown, may be, and usually is, either the
cause or effect of many others, or is collaterally connected
with other facts. Evidence of surrounding and connected
circumstances relevant to the main point in issue or growing
out of it is always admissible, and it is for the jury to deter-
mine upon its weight and sufficiency. When the surrounding
circumstances are acts to which the witness is able to testify of
iVan Sickle v. Gibson, 40 Mich. s Albertsen v. Robeson, 1 Dall. (TJ. S.)
167 ; Morrill v. Foster, 33 N. H. 379 ; 9 ; Colclough v. Smith, 15 Ir. Ch.
Eaton V. Tallmadge, 34 ' Wis. 217 ; 347 ; Rex v. Wedge, 5 C. & P. 298.
Clements v. Hunt, 1 Jones (N. C), Cf. Rex V. Haj-es, 3 Cox C. C. 226 ;
400. Rogers v. Coal Co. (Ala., 1893), 13
2 Bain v. State, 61 Ala. 75 ; State v. S. Rep. 81. Age generally must be
Cain, 9 W. Va. 559 ; Cherry v. State, proved, and cannot be determined by
68 Ala, 29 ; Cheever v. Congdon, 34 the jury from the appearance of a
Mich. 296 ; State v. McClain, 49 Kan. person. Stephenson v. State, 28 Ind.
730 ; Houlton v. Manteuflfel (Minn., 273 ; State v. Arnold, 13 Ired. 184
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 541; State v. « McGoon v. Irvin, 1 Finney (Wis.),
Best (N. C, 1891), 12 S. E. Rep. 907. 526.
§§ 55, 5C.] HEAESAT. 75
his own knowledge, no question can arise as to the original
character of the evidence, and though the circumstances may
be only remotely connected with the main fact, yet, if rele-
vant at all, it cannot be objected that such evidence is hear-
say.' Upon the same principle the declarations of a person
are admitted as evidence because of their connection with and
relevancy to the principal fact by virtue of. what is termed
the rule of the res gestm.^
§ 55. Requisites. — ■ These declarations are not hearsay evi-
dence. They are original evidence connected with the main
facts in issue and from which the truth or untruthfulness of
such facts may be inferred.' To render such declarations
admissible as original evidence they must possess, besides
relevancy, three other characteristics, viz. : First, they must
have been uttered contemporaneously with and grow out of
the act upon which they have a bearing; second, they must
qualify, illustrate, explain or unfold its nature or meaning, so
as, thirdly, to be connected with it in such a way that the
declaration and the act will form but a single transaction.*
§ 56. Must be illustrative of and connected with main
transaction. — The range of events included by the term res
gestae varies a,ccording to the circumstances of each particular
case. The principle upon which these declarations are ad-
mitted is their spontaneous and undesigned character and
their explanatory or illustrative value in conjunction with
the main event.^
1 See'l Greenl. on Evid., § 108. People, 43 111. App. 427 ; Beaver v.
2 Graves v. People (Colo., 1893), 32 Taylor, 1 Wall. 642 ; Hewitt v. Eisen-
Pac. Eep. 63. bart, 55 N. W. Rep. 252 ; Missouri,
3 1 Greenl. on. Evid, § 108. etc. Co. v. Bond (Tex., 1893), 20 S. W.
^ 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 108 ; Sterling Rep. 930 ; Missouri, etc. Co. v. Baier
V. Buckingham, 46 Conn. 464. (Neb., 1893), 55 N. W. Eep. 913 ; Poole
5 Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, v. East Tenn. etc. Co. (Ga., 1893), 17
85 Ga. 751 ; Glass v. Bepnett (Tenn., S. E. Eep. 267 ; Kane v. Troy, 48 Hun,
1890), 14 S. W. Rep. 1085; Bank v. 619; Sistare v. Heoksher, 63 Hun,
Kennedy, 17 Wall. 19, 23, 24 ; Rich- 634 ; Hermes v. Chicago, etc. Co., 80
mond, etc. Co. v. Hammond (Ala., Wis. 590; Brooks v. Duggan, 149 Mass.
1890), 9 a Rep. 577 ; Koetler v. Man. 396 ; Schlemmer v. State, 51 N. J. L.
Ry. Co., 59 Hun, 623 ; United States 29 ; Fellows v. Williamson, 1 M. &
V. Noelke, 17 Blatohf. 570; King v. M. 306; Hunter v. State, 11 Vroom,
King, 42 Mo. App. 454 ; Edwards v. 495.
Watertown, 59 Hun, 620 ; Powers v.
1Q heaesat'. [§ 5&.
It is impossible to lay down any general rule upon the
question of what declarations do or do not constitute a part
of the res gestw. The main points to be considered are the
explanatory character of the declaration under the particular
circumstances which are in litigation. Accordingly, where it
is sought to show that a certain relationship existed between
persons or to ascertain the feeling toward each other of those
who have been connected by social or other ties, evidence of
the declarations, spoken or written, of the parties involved is
admissible as a part of the res gestw} But declarations form-
ing a part of the res gestm are only relevant where the act
itself is equivocal or when its nature or motive is doubtful and
the statements of the party are invoked to make his act or
intention clear and easy to be understood.^ Thus where the
intention or purpose of a corporative ' or individual act,* or a
question of domicile,' is involved, the resolutions of the cor-
poration or the declaration of the person about to change his
domicile, or while absent from it, if precisely contemporaneous
with it and explanatory of the act, are admissible.
Where, as for example in the trial of an indictment for
murder, the question of malice or premeditation is raised, the
statements of the accused, constituting often the only evi-
dence procurable of his mental condition, are admissible to
show whether the killing was deliberate or under the sudden
impulse of fear or anger."
1 Peyser v. Myers, 63 Hun, 634 ham v. Canton, 5 Me. 266 ; Travellers'
(proof of partnership). Ins. Co. v. Mosley, b Wall. 408.
2 Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. ^Ayer v. Weeks, 65 N, H. 248;
150 ; Railroad Co. v. Clowdis (Ga., Besch v. Beach, 37 Tex. 290 ; Kilburu
1893), 17 a E. Rep. 88 ; Nutting v. v. Bennett, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 199 ; Jen-
Page, 4 Gray, 584. nison v. Hapgood, 10 Pick. 77 ; Bur-
3 Baker v. Maloney (Tex.), 4 S. W. gess v. Clark, 3 Ind. 250 ; Marsh v.
Rep. 469 ; Clever v. Hilberry, 116 Pa. Davis, 24 Vt. 363 ; College v. Gore, 15
St. 431 ; Wiley v. Athol, 150 Mass. Pick. 372 ; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How.
430 ; McLeod v. Ginter, 80 Ky. 403. (U. S.) 400, 431 ; Fulham v. Howe, 60
■* Chattanooga Co. v. Clowdis (Ga., Vt. 351 ; Richmond v. Thomaston, 38
1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 88 ; Young v. Me. 233 ; Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N. Y.
Board of Mahoning County, 51 Fed. 556 ; Gilman v. Gilman, 53 Me. 165 ;
Rep. 585 ; Rudd v. Rounds, 64 Vt. 433 ; Thorndike v. Boston, 1 Met. 343.
Lake Shore, etc. Co. v. Herrick (Ohio, « Gantier v. State (Tex., 1893), 31 S.
1893), 39 N. E. Rep. 1053; St. Louis, W. Rep. 255; Miller v. State, 31 Tex.
etc. Co. V. Murray, 55 Ark. 248 ; Cal- Crim. App. 109 ; §§ 51, 53 ; State v.
deron v. O'Donahue, 47 Fed. Rep. 39 ; Walker, 77 Me. 490.
Small V. Williams, 87 Ga. 681 ; Gor-
§ 67.] HEAESAY. 11
§ 67. Declarations must be contemporaneous or nearly so.
The necessity for the contemporaneous character of the decla-
rations has been much discussed, but it is impossible to lay down
any rule which will be applicable to all cases. In one instance '
an exclamation uttered only a few moments after a person
had been assaulted, and while she was seeking to escape, was
held inadmissible because not contemporaneous with the main
transaction.
Though the majority of the American decisions, however,
do not require that the act and the declarations should be
precisely contemporaneous provided they are otherwise con-
nected, in many of the states the strict English doctrine is
adhered to.^ Their unpremeditated and spontaneous charac-
ter being the main ground for their reception, it is clear on
the whole that, where any interval has elapsed between the
act and the declaration, the likelihood that the declarant has
taken advice or considered what he should say would have a
bearing on their exclusion.' It has been repeatedly held that,
when a single day had intervened, the declaration was not
admissible.* But where the declaration was made soon after
the event with which it was connected, it is admissible,^ pro-
1 Reg. V. Bedingfleld, 14 Cox's Cr. 75 Mich. 473 ; Durham v. Shannon,
Cas. 341. n6In(i403.
a United States v.Noelke, 17 Blatchf. SQoff v. Bank, 47 N. W. Rep. 190.
570; United States V. Angell, 11 Fed. ^Noyes.v. White, 19 Conn. 250;
Eep. 41 ; State v. Moore (Mo., 1893), Montgomery v. McGuire, 25 111. App.
22 S. W. Eep. 1086 ; State v. Mason, 31 ; Ft. Smith Oil Co. v. Slover (Ark.,
112 Mo. 874; Penn. Ry. Co. v. Lyons, 1894), 24 S. W. Rep. 106; Short v. N.
139Pa. St. 113;.Lewkev. D. D.E. B. Pac. El. Co., 45 N. W. Rep. 706;
etc. Co., 46 Hun, 283; Texas, etc. Co. Southerland v. W. & W. E. Co., 11
V. Barron, 78 Tex. 421; Dwyer v. S. E. Eep. 189; 106 N. C. 100; Co-
Bassett, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 513 ; Evans rinth v. Lincoln, 34 Me. 310.
V. State (Ark., 1893), 23 8. W. Eep. ^ Harriraan v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 93 ;
1036 ; State v. Eaven (Mo., 1893), 23 Insurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall.
S. W. Eep. 876; State v. Daugherty, (U. S.) 397; Hanna v. Hanna (Tex.,
17 Nev. 376 ; Ohio, etc. Co. v. CuUi- 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 730 ; Chapin v.
son, 40 111. App. 67; Texas, etc. Co. Cambria Iron Co., 145 Pa. St. 478;
V. Robertson, 83 Tex. 657 ; Mayes v. Butler v. Manhattan Ey. Co., 34 N.
State, 64 Miss. 829 ; State v. Frazier, Y, S. 442 ; Miss. Pac. Ey. Co. v. Baier
1 Houst (Del.) 176; Jones v. State, (Neb., 1893), 55 N. W. Eep, 913; Ohio
71 Ind. 66 ; Gulf, etc. Co. v. York, & M. Ey. Co. v. Stern (Ind., 1892), 31
74 Tex. 374; 13 S. W. Rep. 68; N. E. Eep. 180; Jewel v. Jewel, 1
Wormsdorf v. Detroit City R Co., How. (U. S.) 319 ; Penn. R Co. v.
Y8 HEAKSAT. [§ 58.
Tided a period, however short, has not elapsed which would
give an opportunity for deliberation.^
§ 58. Entries a part of the res gestae and made by third
persons. — Sometimes entries made by third parties in books
of record or account, or letters and telegrams sent by them,
are original and primary evidence, even though the parties
themselves be not called. Entries are divided into public and
private. The former are those made by a public ofBcial in
the course of his public duties. The latter are made by pri-
vate persons in the exercise of their commercial or profes-
sional callings.
To render entries made by a third party admissible as orig-
inal evidence, they must possess substantially the character-
istics requisite in the case of verbal declarations which are
a part of the res gestm.
The general rule is that, whether the entry or writing be
one that is made in the performance of an oificial, professional
or private duty, the party must have been legally authorized
to make it and it must have been made in the course of busi-
ness.^ So the writing itself must be relevant to the transac-
Lyons, 18 Atl. Eep. 759 ; 129 Pa. St of a declaration in connection with
113; Lewke v. D. D. E. B. & B. R evidence of the principal fact, as
Co., 46 Hun, 383 ; Thomas v. Herrall, stated by Mr. Greenleaf, must be de-
18 Oreg. 546 ; Insurance Co. v. Shep- termined by the judge according to
pard, 85 Ga. 751 ; Stevens v. Castel, the degree of its relation to the fact
63 Mich. 118. and in the exercise of a sound discre-
1 Durkee v. Cent. P. Ry. Co., 69 tion ; it being extremely difficult, if
Cal. 583 ; Tennis v. Railway Co. not impossible, to bring this class of
(Kan., 1891), 25 Pac. Eep. 876. "The cases within the limits of a more
modern doctrine has relaxed the an- particular description. The princi-
cient rule that declarations, to be ad- pal points of attention are, he adds,
missible as part of the res gestce, whether the declaration was contem-
must be strictly contemporaneous poraneous with the main fact and so
with the main transaction. It now connected with it as to illustrate its
allows evidence of them when they character." Vicksburg & Meridian
appear to have been made under the R. Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 99, 105-6.
immediate influence of the principal 2 Rollins v. United States, 23 Ct
transaction and are so connected CI. 106 (official letter) ; McDonald v.
with it as to characterize or explain Carnes, 7 S. Eep. 919; 90 Ala. 147;
it. What time may elapse between State v. Martin, 15 S. W. Rep. 529 ;
the happening of the event and the Cobb v. Malone, 86 Ala. 571 ; 8 S.
time of the declaration, and the dec- Rep. 693; Boiling v. Fannin (Ala.,
laration be yet admissible, must de- 1893), 12 S. Rep. 59 ; Webster v. Web-
pend upon the character of the ster, 1 F. & F. 401.
transaction itself. The admissibility
§ 58.] HEAESAT. 79
tion with which it is sought to be connected, and must relate
to and be contemporaneous with it and be illustrative of it.^
It is also required that the person who is the author of the
entry or writing should have been in a position where he
would have peculiar opportunities of possessing a knowledge
of the occurrence to which the entry relates, and that, having
such knowledge, he must also have been impartial and with-
out apparent motive to deceive by fabricating evidence or
perverting the circumstance described.^ These requirements
being met, the writings are admissible as original evidence,
and though the party, if living and if he can be found, should
be called to testify, yet his non-production or incompetency
as a witness ^ will not render the entries or writing hearsay
evidence.* A foundation for the introduction of the .entries
or documents must be laid by testimony which will serve to
identify them and show their contemporaneous character as
a part of the res gestae}
The rule under consideration is of very extensive usefulness
and application. Under it not only are books of account
and public records kept by third persons admitted as original
1 Stallings v. Hallura, 79 Tex. 431 ; indorser has received notice of pro-
Baldridge v. Penland, 68 Tex. 441 ; test for non-payment Welch v. Bar-
Cont. Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co., 51 rett, 15 Mass. 380 ; HalUday v. Mar-
Fed. Rep. 884; Lassone v. Boston & tinett, 20 Johns. 168; Bank v.
L. R. Co. (N. H., 1893), 24 Atl. Rep. Mitchell, 15 Conn. 306 ; Nichols v.
903 ; Lewis v. Meginnis, 30 Fla. 419 ; Webb, 8 Wheat 326 ; Nichols v. Gold-
Bolling V. Fanning (Ala., 1893), 13 S. smith, 7 Wend. 860 ; Sherman v.
Rep. 59; Farrington v. Hayes (Vt, Crosby, 11 Johns. 70; Sherman v.
1893), 25 Atl. Rep. 1091 ; Livingston's Atkins, 4 Pick. 283; Hart v., Ken-
Appeal (Conn., 1893), 26 Atl. Rep. dall, 83 Ala. 144, cited in 1 Greenl.
470. on Evid., § 114.
2 Welch V. Barrett, 15 Mass. 380; 3 Augusta v. Windsor, 19 Me. 317;
Bank. v. Whitehill, 16 S. & R 89 ; Nichols v. Webb, 8 Wheat 326.
Davis V. Fuller, 13 Vt 178 ; Nichols * But see St Louis, etc. Co. v. Hen-
V. Webb, 8 Wheat 326 ; Brewster v. derson (Ark., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep.
Doan, 3 Hill, 537; Hart v. Kendall, §73.
83 Ala. 144; Kansas, etc. Co. v. 5 jieconce v. Mower, 37 Kan. 298 ;
Smith, 90 Ala. 25 ; McVey v. Durkin, 15 Pac. Rep. 155 ; Fowler v. Schafer,
136 Pa. St 418. Entries made by a 32 N. W. Rep. 292 ; Stallings v. Gott-
bank messenger or notary public in schalk (Md., 1893), 36 Atl. Rep. 534 ;
books ordinarily kept by such per- Healey v. Bauer, 65 Hun, 621 ; Liv-
sons are admissible in an action on ingston's Appeal (Conn., 1893), 36 Atl.
a promissory note to show that pay- Rep. 470 ; Farrington v. Hayes (Vt,
ment has been demanded and that.the 1893), 35 Atl. Rep. 1091.
-80 HEAESAT. [§ 59.
evidence,' but private books,^ photographs,' maps and surveys
have also been received.* Thus an entry made in the diary
of a surgeon who was present in a professional capacity at
the birth of a person is admissible when the exact date of
that event is in issue.' Though a certificate of a person's bap-
tism is inadmissible to show the date of his birth,^ yet his bap-
tism may be shown by the entry made at the time according
to the rules of the church by the priest who baptized him,
where the entry was made as a part of the ceremony, though
the book in which it was made was not required to be kept.'
From these instances it will be seen that the rule by which
such entries are admitted as original evidence of the occur-
rence which they record and of which they form a part is not
confined to records of a public character.
In very many cases private . entries and writings, such as
receipts, indorsements of service on legal process,^ and press
copies of letters, have been received when the party who
made them was dead or for other reasons could not be pro-
duced, and it was shown that the part^'' was impartial, and,
iaving compatent knowledge, had made a true and accurate
record of the transaction.'
§ 59. Entries against interest and entries which are a
part of the res gestae distinguished. — Entries and writings
iBelly. Kendrick (Fla., 1890), 6 S. 718; Kennedy v. Doyle, 10 Allen
Hep. 868. See post, gg 143a-l60. (Mass.), 161 ; Witcher v. McLaughlin,
2 Chenango Corp. v. Lewis, 63 115 Mass. 167; McGuirk v. Mut L.
Barb. (N. Y.) 111. Ins. Co., 66 Hun, 638. The register
3 Mississippi, etc. Co. v. Moore, 15 S. of a parish kept by its priest is ad-
W. Rep. 714 ; Kansas, etc. Co. v. Smith, missible to prove a marriage solem-
90 Ala. 25 ; 8 S. Rep. 43. See § 38. nized by him if regularly kept and if
4 Ewing V. State, 81 Tex. 173 ; Row- it shows the facts which are essen-
land V. MoCowan, 30 Oregon, 588; tial to consti(;ute a valid marriage
36 Pac. Rep. 853 ; McVey v. Durkin, contract State v. Doris, 40" Conn.
136 Pa. St. 416; Weld v. Brooks, 35 145; Erwin v. English, 61 id. 503; 23
N. E. Rep. 719; 153 Mass. 297. See Atl. Rep. 753; Jacobi v. Order of
post, § 145. Germania, 36 N. Y. S. 318.
5 Higham V. Ridgway, 10 East, 109. ^ See post, § 150a,- Stapylton v.
6 Lavin v. Aid Society, 74 Wis. 349. Clough, 2 El. & Bl. 933.
Contra, Jacobi v. Order of Germania, ' De Arnold v. Neasmith, 32 Mich.
26 N. Y. S. 318. 231 ; Steubing v. New York EL R
'Hunt V. Order of Chosen Friends, Co., 19 N. Y. S. 313; Gould v. Con-
•64 Mich. 671; 31 N. W. Rep. 576; way, 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 355; Bank v.
, -Kabok V. L. L Ins. Co., 4 N. Y. & MitcheU, 15 Conn. 206.
§ 60.] HEARSAY. 81
or declarations made by persons who are not parties to the
suit which are admissible as evidence because they are concom-
itant of the main transaction and form a part of it should
be distinguished from those which are admissible solely be-
cause they are against the interest of the declarant. The
former are original evidence forming a part of the res gestm,
and the fact that they were made, rather than their truth or
falsity, is the main fact to be shown. Hence the fact that
the declarant is alive or dead, or the fact that he is interested
or the amount of his interest in making the entry or declara-
tion, has no material bearing on the admissibility of such
statements, although his interest may be considered by the
jury in estimating the weight or credit which they may at-
tach to such entries.* But in the latter class of declarations
the primary fact that they are against interest is never to be
lost sight of ; nor should it be forgotten that these declarations,
constituting not original evidence but an exception to the rule
rejecting hearsay, are introduced to substantiate the truth of
the facts asserted in them, and not merely to show that they
were uttered at the date of the transaction inissue.^
§ 60. A party's own books are evidence Upon the ques-
tion whether entries made in the books of a party to the suit
are admissible as evidence in his own favor under the proposi-
tion that such entries constitute a part of the res gestce, the
cases are at considerable variance. If the entry was made by
an employee of the party having personal knowledge of the
facts, in the usual course of his employment, in books which
were kept for such entries, and if it was made at or near the
date of the transaction and is illustrative of it, then there can
be no objection to its admission upon the principles already
laid down. It is really hearsay evidence, however, because
the book-keeper or other person making the entry was not on
oath or cannot be produced, or, being produced, has wholly
forgotten the circumstances attending the transaction.'
i§§ 117,118. -Ross V. Brusie, 11 Pac. Rep. 760;
2 1 Greenl. on Evid., §§ 130, 147. 70 Cal. 465 ; Moore v. Knott, 14 Oreg.
3 Schuokman v. Winterbottom, 9 35 ; Laraberty v. Roberts, 9 N. Y. S.
N. Y. a 733; Hancock v. Kelly, 3 S. 607; Griesbacher v. Tanenbaum, 8
Rep. 381; 81 Ala. 868; Brower v. id. 583; Blumhart v. Rohr, 70 Md.
East Rome Town Co., 84 Ga. 319; 339; Barnes v. Dow, 59 Vt 580;
6
82
HEAESAT.
[§60.
At common law, partly from the necessity of the case be-
cause of the incompetency of a party to testify as a witness,
entries made by him personally in his own books were con-
sidered admissible as evidence forming a part of the res gestae.^
But to render them admissible it must be affirmatively shown
that the books are books of first or original entry, were regu-
larly kept in the course of business, and that no other books
of account bearing upon the same transaction were kept at
that time. The entries must have been made at the time
they purport to have been made and contemporaneously with
the transactions they describe or to which they refer. If the
entry be made by a party to the action himself, it must also
be shown that he had no book-keeper or clerk whose regular
duty it was to make such entries, and that he (the party) was
present at the time of the transaction.^ The formal character
of the books, whether ledgers or sales-books, is immaterial so
far as their admissibility is concerned, if it be shown that they
Lewis V. Meginnis, 30 Fla. 419 ; Kuh
V. Michigan Bank, 93 Mich. 511 ;
GoflE V. State Bank (Wis., 1893), 54 N.
W. Kep. 732 ; Bedford v. Sherman,
68 Hun, 317 ; Morris v. Morton, 20
Sb W. Eep. 287 ; Johnson v. Culver,
116 Ind. 278; Culver v. Marks, 132
id. 554. A promise to pay for the
goods charged cannot be proven by
an entry in a party's books. Somers
V. Wright, 114 Mass. 171 ; Keithe v.
Kibbe, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 35. But a
credit may be proven by the pai-ty
giving it. Ross v. Brusie, 70 Cal. 465.
1 Entries in the diaries or account
books of physicians and attorneys
liave been held competent to prove
the value of services rendered by
them. Codmon v. Caldwell, 31 Me.
560; Bay v. Cook, 22 N. J. L. 843;
Murphy v. Gates (Wis., 1893), 51 N.
W. Rep. 573. Contra, Hale's Ex'rs
V. Ard, 48 Pa. St 23; Brigga v.
Georgia, 15 Vt 61.
2 Ailing V. Brazee, 37 III. App. 595 ;
Watrous v. Cunningham, 11 Pac.
Rep. 811; 71 Cal. 30; Cogswell v.
Dolliver, 2 Mass. 217 ; White v. Whit-
ney, 82 Ca). 163 ; Burnham v. Adams,
5 Vt 313 ; Barnes v. Dow, 59 id. 230 ;
Prince v. Smith, 4 Mass. 455 ; Mathes
V. Robinson, 8 Met 269 ; Rexf ord v.
Comstock, 3 N. Y. S. 876 ; Rodman
V. Hoops, 1 Dall. 85; Setchers v.
Keigwin, 57 Conn. 573; Smith v.
Rentz, 131 Pa. St 169; Cormac v.
Western White Bronze Co., 77 Iowa,
32 ; Roberts' Appeal, 26 Pa St 102 ;
Doty V. Smith, 68 Hun, 199. Where
the entries are in the handwriting
of a party, the delivery of the goods
thus charged must be shown by in-
dependent evidence. Baldridge v.
Penland, 68 Tex. 441 ; 4 S.. W. Rep.
565. The admissibility of a party's
own entries is for the court Pratt
V. White, 132 Mass. 477. An entry
made personally by a party has been
held inadmissible to prove a debt
(Doty V. Smith, 68 Hun, 199), even
though supplemented by his oath.
Sauter v. Carroll, 11 Pa. Ca Ct R.
192.
§ 60.] PEAESAT. 83
v^ere fairly and honestly kept, are books of original entry,
and are free from material alterations, interlineations or other
circumstances calculated to arouse a suspicion.'
"When the books of original entry of a party are produced
as evidence in his favor, it is necessary that they should be
supplemented by his oath as to the main transaction involved.
Thus, if the book entry relates to a sale of goods, the party
will be called upon to swear that the sale was actually made
and the goods delivered, although the details of the transac-
tion — as, for example, the quantities and prices charged —
may have to be gathered from the written entry.^
In a suit brought by an executor or administrator, the books
of the decedent are still admissible as evidence under the con-
ditions above outlined. Of course the absence of the oath of
the party who has made the entry may detract from its evi-
dential force, and in such circumstances his personal repre-
sentative should be called upon to show, so far as he knows
the books are the actual books of deceased, that the entries
are original and contemporaneous ' and any other facts neces-
sary to lay a foundation for the admission of such evidence.
So the handwriting of the party who has made the entry
must be proven.* The same principles apply where the party
is a lunatic, if that fact and the identity of the handwriting
be shown.' A party's own entries are not universally admis-
sible in his favor at common law, and in many instances where
they have become admissible their admission is founded on
the necessity of the case and is due to a statutory modiflcar
1 Lewis V. Meginnis, 30 Fla. 419
Goodwin v. O'Brien, 6 N. Y. S. 239
Rexford v. Comstock, 3 N. Y. S. 876
Vaugh V. Strong, 4 N. Y. S. 689
Ailing V. Wenzel, 27 111. App. 511
Churchman v. Smith, 6 Whart. 106
Hancock v. Flynn, 8 N. Y. S. 138
White V. Whitney, 22 Pac. Rep. 1138
2 Baldridge v. Penland, 66 Tex. 441 ;
Dwinel v. Pottle, 3 Me. 167 ; Painer
V. Hodge, 71 N. Y. 598; Guy v.
Mead, 23 id. 463.
3 Pratt V. White, 132 Mass. 478;
Davis V. Sanford, 9 Allen, 216.
* Kinney v. United States, 54 Fed.
Rep. 313; McLellan v. Crofton, 6
83 Cal. 163. In Stuckslager v. Neel, Greenl. 307 ; Chipman v. Kellogg, 60
138 Pa. St. 60, it was held that a Mich. 438. Contra, Bowers v. Over-
party's books are not admissible to field, 10 Pa. Co. Ct R. 378.
prove the sale of an article not dealt ^ Holbrook v. Gay, 6 Cush. 315.
in by him in the usual course of See 1 Smith's Lead. Cases, 139, note
business. So in Baldridge v. Pen- to case of Price v. Tarrington.
land, 68 Tex. 441 ; 4 S, W. Rep. 565.
84
HEAESAT.
.[§60.
tion of the common law, and not entirely to the fact that the
entries constitute a part of the res gestw.
A full discussion of the statutory rules being impossible here,
the reader is referred to the cases cited in the notes and to the
statutes of his own state for a further elucidation of the sub-
ject.'
Books of account not regularly kept, or in which only a few
or only occasional entries are made, are not admissible.^ Eut
the circumstance that a party's books are largely in the hand-
writing of some third person is immaterial.^ Testimony of
this sort, in order to be admissible, must be contained in books
of original entry, though upon the question what shall consti-
tute a book of original entry the courts are by no means har-
monious.* If books are kept regularly, so that the memo-
randa or slips upon which the earliest entries are made are
immediately transcribed into the books of account, then the
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 118, citing
Vosburg V. Thayer, 13 Johns. 261;
Prince v. Smith, 4 Mass. 455 ; Burns
V. Fay. 14 Pick. 8 ; Richards v. How-
ard, 2 Nott. & McC. 474 ; Wiusor v
Dillaway, 4 Met. 221 ; Kerr v. Love,
1 Wash. 172 ; Louergan v. Whitehead,
10 Watts, 349 ; Newton v. Higgins, 2
Vt. 366 ; Dunn v. Whitney, 10 Me. 9 ;
Green v. Pratt, 11 Conn. 205 ; Prest
V. Mersereau, 10 N. J. L. 268 ; Gan-
ther V. Jenks, 76 Mich. 510; In re
Simpson, 5 N. Y. S. 868; Watrous v.
Cunningham, 71 Cal. 32; Eumsey v.
N. Y. & N. J. Tel. Co., 49 N. J. L. 333 ;
Roche V. Ware, 71 Cal. 375 ; Setohel
V. Keigwin, 57 Conn. 478; Green v.
Mill, 60 Vt. 442; Woolsey v. Bohn.
41 Minn. 337; Ailing v. Wenzel, 37
111. A pp. 516. In Missouri a party's
books are not admissible in his favor.
Nipper v. Jones, 27 Mo. App. 558.
-Nat. Ulster Co. Bank v. Madden,
114 N. Y. 380; Kibbe v. Bancroft, 17
111. 18; Godding v. Orcutt, 44 Vt.
54 ; Korwitz v. Wright, 37 Tex. 83 ;
McNulty's Appeal, 135 Pa. St 210.
^Vosburgh v. Thayer, 13 Johns.
461; Young v. Luce, 66 Hun, 631.
Entries in a depositor's pass-book
are not admissible in a suit by the
bank against a third person, as the
book is not a book of original entry.
Wills Pt. Bank v. Bate^ 72 Tex. 137.
But contra in Kux v. Central M.
Sav. Bank, 93 Mich. 511; Goff v.
Stoughton St. Bank, 54 N. W. Rep.
733, where the suit was by the de-
positor against the bank.
* Where it is sought to prove a
charge or debt, mere memoranda,
such as would be made upon the
stubs of a check-book or in an order-
book, are not admissible. Flood v.
Mitchell, C8 N. Y. 507; Moore v.
Meacham, 10 id. 207 ; Cooper v. Mor-
rell, 4 Yeates, 341. But a bank check
drawn by a decedent is admissible in
an action against his estate to show
payments made by him to the plaint-
iff. Jesse V. Davis, 34 Mo. App. 341.
If the book is mutilated it may be
excluded. Lovelock v. Gregg, 14
Colo. 53.
§ 60.] HEARSAY. 85
latter' of course become books of original entry and are unob-
jectionable.* But where the books are written up at short
and regular intervals — as, for example, at the close of each
day's business, or on the following day — from written memo-
randa made at the precise time of the transaction, the books
cannot be rejected because of an alleged lack of originality.^
The principle of law that in the case of an entry made by
an employee in the party's own books the employee must
have a personal knowledge of the facts he records has been
somewhat modified from necessity where numerous entries
involving many details are in question. Thus in large com-
mercial undertakings, where many laborers are employed or
whore very many sales and deliveries of goods are made, it is
not possible for the book-keeper to have a personal knowl-
edge of every transaction, and he is compelled to rely upon a
fellow-servant, as a time-keeper or salesman, for his information.
Such entries, made in the course of business, are admissible
if corroborated by the evidence of both employees to the ef-
fect that they made true and accurate reports and entries in
the course of the performance of their duty to the master.'
The entry need not be a complete statement of the transac-
' So a book into which entries were But a ledger is not a book of oi-iginal
regularly made from way-bills by the entry. Jilmar v. Schell, 35 N. Y.
freight agent is admissible without Sup. Ct 67 ; Lawhorn v. Carter, 11
producing the bills. Robinson v. Bush (Ky.), 7.
Mulder, 81 Mich. 75. ' New York City v. Second Av. R.
2 Walter v. Bolraan, 8 Watts, 544; R. Co., 102 N. Y. 579; Nat. Ulster
Boggan V. Horn, 97 N. C. 268; Lur- Bank v. Madden, 114 id. 233; Bed-
ren v. Crawford, 4 S. & R. 3, 5 ; ford v. Sherman, 68 How. 312 ; Eudd
Woolsey v. Boon, 41 Minn. 235 ; v. Robinson, 7 N. Y. S. 535 ; Young
Faxon v. HoUis, 13 Mass. 427; Taylor v. Luce, 66 How. 631 ; Morris v. Mor-
V. Davis (Wis., 1892), 52 N. W. Rep. ton (Ky., 1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 287;
756; Patton v. Ryan, 4 Rawle, 408; Taylor v. Davis (Wis., 1892), 52 N. W.
Hartley vj Brooks, 6 Whart. 189 ; Rep. 756 ; Nelson v. New York, 131
Moses V. Penquit, 82 Ala. 370 ; 34 N. N. Y. 4. The circumstance that de-
W. Rep. 445; Stroud v. Til ton, 4 fendant has recognized the accuracy
Abb. (N. Y.) App. 324 ; JefEries v. of the books of the plaintiff iu trans-
Urmy, 3 Houst. (Del.) 653 ; Barker v. actions with other persons is ma-
Haskell, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 218-; Kent v, terial as bearing on their admissi-
Garvin, 1 Gray (Mass.), 148; Hall bihty. West v. Van Tuyl, 119 N. Y.
V. Glidden, 39 Me. 445; Powers v. 620; Pub. Ass'n v. Fisher (Mich.,
Savin, 28 Abb. N. C. 463. Contra, 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 759.
Robertson v. Reed, 38 Mo. App. 32,
86 HEAESA.T. [§ 61.
tion, for books which only contain marks, signs or figures are
admissible, provided there is other evidence which will ren-
der these entries intelligible and show their explanatory con-
nection with the main transaction.* So the fact that the ac-
count is kept by notches cut in a stick,^ or is marked on a
slate ' or board with a piece of chalk,* will not render the
book into which it is transferred inadmissible. So the fact
that a written entry is in cipher will not cause its exclusion.'
Mere memoranda of transactions in dispute, made in books
or on loose papers, made for the purpose not of charging
either party, but merely to aid the memory of the person
making them, are not, it has been sometimes held, admissible
as independent evidence, but may be read by the witness to
refresh his memory. He will then be required to testify of
his own knowledge to the facts and transactions which are
contained in his memoranda.'
§ 61. Indorsements as part of the res gestae. — Under the
rule of the res gestm is included the acknowledgment of a
partial payment indorsed by the holder of negotiable paper
upon the note or other security. Such an indorsement, tend-
ing to show payment by the creditor or maker of the negoti-
able paper, is admissible evidence of his acknowledgment of
the debt, and the effect of such part payment may be to pre-
vent the note from being barred by the statute of limitation.
If, therefore, a note so indorsed be offered in evidence, it will
be presumed, in the absence of circumstances to the contrary,
that the receipt was indorsed at the time of the payment
according to the ordinary and well-recognized mercantile cus-
tom, and that the payment was actually made.' The indorse-
1 Miller v. Shay, 145 Mass. 163 ; 13 » Monroe v. Snow, 131 111. 126.
N. E. Rep. 468; Springs v. Sohenck, «Bonnett v. Glatfeldt, 120 111. 166;
106 N. C. 153; Pratt v. White, 133 Baum v. Eeay, 96 Cal. 643; Bates v.
Mass. 477. Sabin, 64 Vt. 511 ; Bates v. Preble
2 Kendall v. Field, 14 Me. 30. (U. S., 1894), 13 S. Cfc. 377; Whitaker
3 Faxon v. Hollis, 13 Mass. 43; v. White, 69 Hun, 288; Cunard v.
Kendall v. Field, 14 Me. 30. Manhattan, 1 Misc. Rep. 151. See
■•Smith V. Sanford, 13 Pick. 139; post, §§ 337, 338.
Pallman v. Smith (Pa., 1890), 19 Atl. 'Nichols v. Webb, 8 Wheat 326;
Rep. 891 ; Crane Lumber Co. v. Otter Whitney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. 110 ;
Creek Lumber Co. (Mich., 1890), 44 Blanson v. Lancey, 84 Me. 389 ; Gib-
N. W. Rep. 788; Barker v. Haskell, 9 son v. Peebles, 3 McCord, 418.
Cush. 318.
§ 61.] HEAESAT. 87
ment thus being a part of the res gestae, i. e., the act of pay-
ment, it is admissible as original evidence for the creditor to
show an acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.' "When,
however, the statute has run upon the instrument, a subse-
quent indorsement by the creditor purporting to show a part
payment by the debtor will be to so large a degree in the in-
terest of the former that no presumption of payment will
arise. Under these circumstances he will be compelled to
prove actual payment by evidence extrinsic to this indorse-
ment.^
1 McCrillis v. Millard, 24 Atl. Eep. boom v. Billington, 17 Johns. 182 ;
S76; 17 R I. 734; Oughterson v. In re Clapsaddle, 34 N. Y. S. 313;
Clark, 65 Hun, 624. 4 Misc. Eep. 355.
n GreenL on Evid., § 121; Rose-
CHAPTER V.
ADMISSIONS.
Offers of compromise — Ad-
missions under duress against
interest
Admissions in pleadings.
Admissions' by reference —
Awards.
Admissions from conduct and
assumed character.
Self-serving declarations.
Mode of proof — Nature of the
admissions.
Weight and sufficiency of ad-
missions.
Admissions, when conclusive —
Mistake.
Estoppel defined.
Intention of party estopped.
Admissions and communica-
tions sent and received by
telephone.
§ 65. Definition and character. — An admission is a con-
cession or voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the
existence or truth of certain facts.* The reception of admis.
sions as evidence constitutes an exception to the rejection of
hearsay evidence and depends upon well-recognized principles
of justice and of public policy by which men are prevented
from taking advantage of their acts or statements intended to
promote their own interests without being compelled to as-
sume full responsibility for them so far as they control or
even influence the affairs of other men. The facts to which
the admission made by a party refers are peculiarly within
his own knowledge. This circumstance, with the indisposi-
tion of men to admit things which are against their interests,
lends weight and credibility to this description of evidence.
The word " admissions " is confined to statements liiade or
65.
Definition and character.
§75.
66.
Privity as affecting admissions.
67,
Parties whose admission is re-
ceived — Joint interest, when
76,
required.
77,
08.
Admissions of partners — Their
effect after dissolution.
78,
69.
Declarations of conspitators.
70.
Assignor and assignee.
79,
71,
Wife's admission — When bind-
ing on husband.
80,
73,
Admissions of inhabitants of
towns.
81,
78.
Admissions of strangers to the
record — Principal and
83.
surety — Admissions of real
83.
parties.
84.
73a
The declarations of agents.
85.
74,
Admissions by attorneys of
record.
1 Bouvier's Law Diet
§ 66.] ADMISSIONS. 89
conduct occurring in transactions not criminal, and, for con-
venience sake, they may be divided into direct, i. e., express
admissions, incidental admissions, and implied admissions.
In implied admissions are included all those that may be
inferred from the conduct or character of the party^ from his
act or omission, or from his acquiescence and silence under
circumstances where it is his duty to speak or act.'
The form of the declaration is not material if its terms are
clear and binding upon the party making them or upon those
in privity with him. Thus, where defendant made statements
over a telephone, the witness was permitted to give evidence
of them upon his testifying that he knew and could distin-
guish defendant's voice.^
§ 66. Privity as aifecting admissions. — By privity is meant
a mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of prop-
erty,' and this relationship presupposes such an identity of
interest that the admission of one privy is by the law regarded
as the admission of all the others.* If a party has limited or
qualified his own rights of enjoyment or ownership over prop-
erty, it is only just that those who enjoy those rights concur-
rently with him, or who succeed to them, should in accepting
the benefits be burdened with the disadvantages and responsi-
bilities. Thus the declarations of the ancestor or of a testator or
grantor in disparagement of the title by which he holds, made
during the period he is owner of the property, are binding
upon the heirs, executors or devisees or grantees respectively.^
But the declarations of a grantor of real property, made sub-
sequent to the date on which he parted with his title, are
never admissible against subsequent purchasers, even though
the declarations refer to the condition and boundaries of the
land as it was while he was the owner of it.' So where a per-
1 See §§ 18, 83. han, 94 111. 142 : Miller v. Ternane, 50
2Steppv. State, 31 Tex. Crim.App. N. J. L. 33; Platner v. Platner, 78
349. ' N. Y. 90 ; Wood v. Fisk, 62 N. H. 173 ;
3 Co. Lit. 271a; 1 Greenl. on Evid.> Whitman v. Haywood, 14 S. W. Rep.
§ 189. 166 ; 77 Tex. 157 ; Lewis v. Adams,
«Seeposi, g§ 68-73a. 61 Ga. 549 ; Stockwell v. Blamey, 129
■' Leggat V. Leggat (Mont., 1893), 33 Mass. 312.
Pac. Rep. 5 ; Snow v. Starr, 12 S. W. « Hills v. Ludwig, 24 N. E. Rep. 596 ;
Rep. 673 ; 75 Tex. 411 ; Pierce v. 46 Ohio St. 513 ; Caste v. Fry, 10 S. E.
Robert, 57 Conn. 81; Hughes v. Rep. 799 ; 33 W. Va 449 ; Bentley v.
Boone, 102 N. C. 137; Mueller v. Rel- O'Brien, 111 111. 53; Taylor v. Dev-
90 ADMISSIONS. [§ 67.
son admitted that lie held the land as a tenant, his declaration
will be binding upon his heir or devisee ' in an action against
the latter to recover the land.
The adverse and continuous character of one's possession
may in like manner be shown by the declaration of a grantor
on whose alleged title the plaintiff in ejectment founds his.^
So where a question of boundary is concerned, the declara-
tions of a former owner, made while in possession of the land,
/ are always admissible against a subsequent purchaser.'
§ 67. Parties whose admission is received — Joint inter-
est, when required. — The admissions of a party to the record
or of one identified in interest with him are receivable against
him, as a general rule. Though several persons may sue or
be sued, the admission of one, though receivable against him,
will not bind the others unless a joint interest or privity exists
between them.^ A mere community of interest is not enough.
But where the required joint interest exists, the admission of
one of the parties, made in the prosecution of the common
undertaking and within its scope, is receivable in evidence
against any or all of his associates.' So, because the neccs-
erell, 43 Kan. 469; Walker v. Cole ■'Petrie v. Williams, 68 Hun, 589;
(Tex., 1894), 24 S. W. Rep. 76. Contra, 23 N. y. S. 237 ; Thompson v. Rich-
Hart V. Randolph (111., 1893), 32 N. E. ards, 14 Mich. 172 ; State v. Ah Tom,
Rep. 517. 8 Nev. 213 ; Grace v. Nesbitt, 109
> Fellows V. Smith, 130 Mass. 78. Mo. 3 ; Burnham v. Sweatt, 16 N. H.
2 Alexander v. Caldwell, 55 Ala. 418; Bensley v. Brockway, 27 IlL
217 ; Stockton v. Staples (Cal., 1893), App. 410 ; Dan v. Brown, 4 Cow.
32 Pac. Eep. 936 ; Hurley v. Lockett, (N. Y.) 483 ; Lenhart v. Allen, 32 Pa.
72 Tex. 262 ; Parrott v. Baker, 82 Ga. St 312 ; McElroy v. Ludlum, 32 N. J.
364; Lawrence v. Wilson (Mass., Eq. 828; Morris v. Nixon, 1 How.
1894), 35 N. E. Rep. 858. (U. S.) 118; Redding v. Wright, 49
3 Wood V. Fiske, 62 N. H. 173 ; Whit- Minn. 322 ; Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co.,
man v. Haygood, 77 Tex. 557. " On 2 Wheat (U. S.) 380 ; Kiser v. Dan-
j a question of private boundary, decla- nenburg, 88 Ga. 541 ; Roberts v. Ken-
rations of a particular fact, as dis- dall, 3 Ind. App. 339 ; Thurman v.
tinguished from reputation, made by Blankeriship-Blake Co., 79 Tex. 171.
a deceased person, are not admissible * See post, g§ 68, 69, 71, 73a;
unless it is shown that such person Collett v. Smith, 143 Mass. 473 ;
had knowledge of that whereof he Vankleck v. McClabe, 87 Mich. 599 ;
spoke, and was on the land or in 9 N. W. Rep. 872. Cf. Rich v. Flan-
possession of it when the declaration ders, 39 N. H. 304 ; Carson v. Gillitt,
was made as part of the res gestoe." 2 N. D. 255 ; 50 N. W. Rep. 710 ; Web-
Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U. S. 363, ster v. Stearns, 44 N. H. 498 ; McKee
364. V. Hamilton, 33 Ohio St, 7; Peyson
§67.]
ADMISSIONS.
91
sary joint interest is lacking, it has been held that the ad-
mission of a tenant in common is not receivable against his
fellow-tenants,^ nor of an executor, trustee or administrator
against those officially associated with him,^ nor of an heir or
devisee to bind the other heirs or devisees.' So no joint
interest exists between successive indorsers,* or between a
promisor and an executor of a co-promisor ; ^ between an ad-
ministrator and an heir of the intestate ; " between remainder-
man and life-tenant ;', among co-underwriters;' between the
person assured and the beneficiary,' or among directors '" or
stockholders of a corporation " which will render the admis-
sion of one receivable as evidence against the others.''
V. Meyers, 63 Hun, 634; Lewis v.
McGinnis, 30 Fla. 419; Mathews v.
Herdtfelder, 15 N. Y. S. ibS.
' Bryant v. Booze, 55 Ga. 438 ; Mc-
Lellan v. Cox, 36 Me. 95 ; Page v.
Swanton, 39 Me. 400 ; Dobson v. Ku-
hula, 66 Hun, 637; Lyons v. Pyatt
(N. J., 1893), 36 Atl. Rep. 834; Koune-
baum V. Mt. Auburn Ey. Co., 39
Weekly L. Bui. 338 ; Talkin v. An-
derson (Tex., 1893), 19 S. W. Rep. 350 ;
Eakle v. Clark, 30 Md. 333; Dan v.
Brown, 4 Cow. (N. J.) 483.
'''Weyman v. Thompson, 35 Atl.
Rep. 305; Dye v. Young, 55 Iowa,
433; McMillan v. McDill, 110 111. 47;
Prewet v. Coopwood, 30 Miss. 369;
Thompson v. Thompson, 13 Ohio St.
356 ; La Bau v. Vanderbilt, 3 Redf.
(N. Y.) 384; Forney v. Terrell, 4 W.
Va. 729 ; Hayes v. Burkam, 67 Ind.
359 ; Prewet v. Land, 36 Miss. 495 ;
Haraberger v. Root, 6 W. & S. (Pa.)
431; Irwin V. West, 81 Pa. St. 157;
Elwood V. Diefendorf, 5 Barb. 498.
'Roberts v. Trawick, 13 Ala. 68;
Berden v. Allen, 10 111. App. 91;
Church V. Howard, 79 N. Y. 415;
O'Conner v. Madison (Mich., 1894), 57
N. W. Rep. 105 ; Walkup v. Pratt, 5
Harr. & J. (Md.) 41 ; Huestou v. Hues-
ton, 3 Ohio St. 488 ; Tinnern v. Hinz,
38 Hun (N. Y.), 465; Haraon v.
Huntley, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 493 ; Wklkev
V. Dunspaugh, 30 N. Y. 170 ; Pease v.
Phelps, 10 Conn. 63. The declaration
of a legatee who it is claimed ob-
tained the will by the employment
of undue influence is not admissible
in a contest to set it aside where
other legatees are mentioned. Liv-
ingston's Appeal, 36 Atl. Rep. ,470
(Conn., 1893) ; In re Baird, 47 Hun, 77.
* Slaymaker v. Gundacker, 10 S. &
R (Pa.) 75.
5 Hathaway v. Haskell, 9 Pick.
(Mass.) 43 ; Slater v. Lawson, B. & Ad.
396 ; Atkins v. Tregold, 3 B. & C. 33.
6 Lawrence v. Wilson (Mass., 1894),
35 N. E. Rep. 858.
'Hill V. Roderick, 4 W. & S. (Pa.)
331 ; McCune v. McCune, 39 Mo. 117 ;
Pool V. Morris, 39 Ga. 374.
8 Lambert V. Smith, 1 Cranch(U. S.),
361.
9 Supreme Lodge v. Schmidt, 98
Ind. 374.
10 Eakle v. Clarke, 30 Md. 333; Bry-
ant V. Booze, 53 Ga. 438.
"Hartford Bank v. Hart, 3 Day
(Conn.), 495.
I'^The admissions of a judgment
debtor are not binding on the cred-
itor or his assignee. Tisch v. Utz,
31 Atl. Rep. 808 (Pa., 1890), 38 W. N.
C. 5S: Cy. 1 Addison on Cont., 78-88,
and 1 Pars, on Cont., 11, for test be-'
tween joint and common interests.
92 ADMISSIONS. [§ 68.
§68. Admissions of partners — Their effect when made
after dissolation. — ; If individuals are associated together with
a common design in view, the law, presuming that the ben-
efits, if any, which will inure from its accomplishment will be
shared by all, will not permit any member of the combina-
tion to escape the consequences of the acts or declarations of
those joined with him.' Thus, the declarations or acts of a
partner made during the existence of the partnership, apper-
taining to its affairs and within its scope, and calculated to
advance the interests of the firm, will bind, all his associates,
the law regarding each partner as the agent of all so far as the
firm's affairs are concerned.^ The fact of the existence of the
partnership must, however, be established, at least primctr
facie, by other evidence, or the declarations, which are ad-
mitted only because contemporaneous with it, will be rejected.'
Accordingly, where the execution of a note was in issue in an~
action against alleged partners, the admission of its signature
by one was not sufficient to enable plaintiff to recover, though
the signature of the others had been proved, in the absence of
other proof of an existing partnership.'' But by suing or de-
fending as partners the existence of the joint interest is in-
cidentally admitted,' and also if each individual admits in
turn that he is a partner with the others, such an admission,
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 111. See, People v. Stanley, 47 Cal. 113; Berry
also, post, § 69. V. Latlirop, 34 Ark. 13 ; Alcott v.
2 Weed V. Kellogg, 6 McLean (U.S.), Strong, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 323; Humes
44; Hunter v. Hubbard, 26 Tex. 537; v. O'Brien, 74 Ala. 64; Vanvvay v.
Maralock v. White, 20 Cal. 598 ; Park Klein, 133 Ind. 416 ; Rich v. Flanders,
T. Wooton, 35 Ala. 243 ; Munson v. 39 N. H: 304 ; Cowen v. Kinney, 33
Wickwire, 21 Conn. 513; Holmes v. Ohio St. 422; Buckman v. Barnum,
Budd, 11 Iowa, 186 ; Collett v. Smith, 15 Conn. 68 ; Clark v. Hoffaker, 36
143 Mass. 473 ; Rich v. Flanders, 39 Mo. 264 ; Winchester v. Whitney,
N. H. 304; McKee v. Hamilton, 33 188 Mass. 549; Jones v. O'Farrell, 1
Ohio St. 7; Hutzler v. Hubbard, 26 Nev. 354; Henry v. Willard, 73 N. C.
Tex. 587; Peden v. Mail, 118 Ind. 35; Cowan v. Kinney, 33 Ohio St
560 ; Bruner v. Nesbitt, 81 111. App. 423 ; McCorkle v. Doby, i Strobh.
517 ; Coit V. Tracy, 8 Conn. 368 ; Boyd (S. C.) 396 ; Beusley v. Brookway, 27
V. Thompson, 153 Pa. St. 78 ; Begg v. III. App. 410.
Blake, 6 Q. B. 126 ; Schull's Appeal, 4 Conley v. Jennings, 22 111. App.
115 Pa. St. 141 ; Pierce v. Roberts, 57 547 ; Gay v. Palmer, 1 Esp. 135. But
Conn. 40 ; Allen v. Clark, 66 Hun, see, contra, Fleming v. Stearns (Iowa,
638. 1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 376.
3 Kelly V. People, 55 N. Y. 565; » Lucas v. Do Cour, 1 M. & S. 249.
§ 68.] ' ADMISSIONS. 93
it is held, will be sufficient to establish the joint relation
against all.^
It is well settled that a partner has no implied power to
bind the firm by any sealed instrument,^ though a document
which merely releases an existing obligation without creating
a new one is not inoperative merely because under seal.' It
would seem logical, in the absence of an agreement to the
contrary, that on the dissolution of the partnership an indi-
vidual's declarations relating to the business of the firm would
be no longer binding upon those with whom he had been but
was not now associated.'' But where such declaration is con-
nected with a firm transaction which took place before the
dissolution, it has been received in evidence as binding on the
other partners.'
Upon the question whether an acknowledgment or part
payment of a debt after dissolution will revive a debt harred
hy the statute of limitation, the cases are not altogether har-
monious. If the acknowledgment be regarded as a new con-
tract, the original debt being extinct and the cause of action
gone, the declaration cannot be admissible as evidence against
the partners, though the declarant has been intrusted with the
liquidation of the firm's afiairs. The power to distribute the
effects of the firm and to settle its affairs by discharging its
valid debts does not confer a power to bind its members by a
1 Edwards v. Tracy, 63 Pa. St. 374. ^So a partner may, after dissolu-
2 Massey v. Pike, 20 Ark. 93 ; Sib- tion, waive demand and notice, on
ley V. Young, 36 S. C. 415 ; McDon- paper indorsed by the firm. Darling
aldson v. Eggleston, 36 Vt. 154. ' v. Marsh, 23 Me. 184,; Selduer v.
3 Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H. 549; Bank, 66 Md. 88. See generally,
Pierson v. Hooker, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) Harding v. Butler, 30 N. E. Rep. 168;
68 ; Fox V. Norton, 9 llich. 307. 156 Mass. 34 ; Beitz v. Fuiler, 1 Mc-
< Hopkins v. Bank, 7 Cowen, 650 ; Cord, 541 ; Lefavour v. Yandes, 2
Curry v. White, 51 Cal. 530 ; Miller Blackf. 240 ; Walden v. Sherbourne,
V. Neimerick, 19 111. 172; Craig v. 15 Johns. 409; Loomis v. Loomis, 26
Alvarson, 6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 609 ; Vt. 198 ; Pierce v. Wood, 23 N. H.
Bowland v. Boozer, 10 Ala. 690; 5)9; Nalle v. Gates, 30 Tex. 815;
Johnson v. Marsh, 3 La. Ann. 773 ; Curry v. Kurtz, 33 Miss. 24 ; Meyers
FJanagin v. Champion, 1 Green Ch. v. Standart, 11 Ohio St. 39. After
(N. J.) 51 ; Winslow v. Tulan, 48 III. 'dissolution a partner cannot confess
145 ; Stockton v. Johnson, 6 B. Mon. judgment against the firm (Mair v.
(Ky.) 409 ; Hogg v. Orgill, 34 Pa. St. Beck, 3 Atl. Rep. 318), though he may
344 ; Baker v. Stockpoole, 9 Cow. (N. compromise the firm's debts. Can-
Y.) 430 ; Maxey v. Strong, 53 Mo. 380. non v. Wildt^an, 38 Conn. 473.
94
ABMISSIONS.
[§
new promise or to charge them with new debts.' There are
some early cases which support a contrary rule upon the er-
roneous supposition that the acknowledgment does not create
a new debt but merely continues one already existing.^
The weight of the decisions sustains the proposition that an
acknowledgment or part payment after dissolution lefore the
debt has hccome tarred is not admissible to extend the time
of limitation,' though the opposite theory, that as paying
debts is included in the power to wind up the firm affairs, a
part payment with partnership funds is valid to bar the stat-
ute as against the other partners, is not without support/
§69. Declarations of conspirators. — This rule by -?vrhich
the declarations of a partner ' or of a fellow-conspirator are
admitted as original evidence binding on his associates is not
based upon the fact that such declarations are admissions or
confessions,' but upon the fact that they are verbal acts.fom-
iKerper v. Wood, 29 N. E Rep.
.501 ; 48 Ohio St. 613 ; Jones v. Moore,
7 Binn. 5T3 ; Story, J., in Bell v. Mor-
rison, 1 Pet. 367. See Levy v. Cadet,
17 S. & R. 127; Searight v. Craig-
head, 1 Penn. ■ 125 ; Yaudes v. La-
favour, 2 Blaokf. 371 ; Roosevelt v.
Marks, 6 Johns. Ch. 266, 291; Van
Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 Comst. (N. Y.)
528; Hackley v. Patrick, 3 Johns.
536, cited in 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 113 ;
Bush V. Stowell, 71 Pa. St. 208;
Hance v. Hair, 25 Ohio St. 349; Wal-
lis V. Randall, 81 N. Y. 164 ; Rogers v.
Clements, 92 N. C. 81.
2 Martin v. Root, 17 Mass. 223;
Ward V. Howell, 5 H. & J'. 60 ; Wheel-
ook V. Doolittle, 3 Wash. 440 ; Cady
V. Shepherd, 11 Pick. 400 ; Bridge v.
Gray, 14 id. 61 ; Fisher v. Tucker, 1
McCord, 175; Mclntire v. Oliver, 2
Hawks, 209; Bissell v. Adams, 55
Conn. 399 ; Buxton v. Edwards, 134
Mass. 567; Patterson v. Choate, 7
Wend. 441 ; Shepley v. Waterhouse,
23 Me. 497; Merritt v. Day, 38 N.
J. L. 32; Hopkins v. Banks, 7 Cow.
650; Goddard v. Ingram, 3 Q. B. 839 ;
Whitcomb v. Whiting, 3 Doug. 652
(Eng., 1781) ; Jackson v. Fairbanks, 2
H. Bl. 340, cited in 1 Greenl. on Evid.,
§ 112. Sometimes a distinction has
been made and it has been held that
the admission is only admissible to
show non-payment, and that the
original debt must be established
otherwise. Patterson v. Choate» 7
Wend. 441 ; Orange v. Low, 5 Gill &
J. 134, and cases supra. .
3 Espey V. Comer, 76 Ala. 501 ; Bis-
sell V. Adams, 35 Conn. 299; Mer-
ritt V. Pollys, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 355;
Newman v. McComas, 43 Md. 70;
Graham v. Selover, 59 Barb. (N. Y.)
313; Reppert v. Colvin, 48 Pa. St.
248.
* Greenleaf v. Quinoy, 12 Me. 11 ;
Beardsley v. Hall, 36 Conn. 270 ; Mc-
Clurg V. Howard, 45 Mo. 365 ; Case-
bolt v. Ackerman, 46 N. J. L. 169;
Wood V. Barber, 90 N. C. 76 ; Mix v.
Shattuck, 50 Vt. 431; Tappan v.
Kimball, 30 N. H. 136; Buxton v.
Edwards, 134 Mass. 367.
5 See §68.
^ See post, §97.
§ 69.] ADMISSIONS. 95
ing a part of the principal transaction or res gestoe. That they
should be against the interests of the declarant or his asso-
ciates is not always necessary if they possess the contempo-
raneous character and explanatory effect required.^ Thus, in
the case of a conspiracy, it is requisite that its existence should
be presumptively established by evidence sufficient to go to
the jury ; ^ the language of one who is shown to have been en-
gaged in it is original evidence against his fellow-conspirators.
It matters not at what stage of the undertaking any one may
have joined, the fact of his association with it being equiva-
lent to ratification of what has preceded it or whatever may
subsequently be done or said.' But it is a fundamental rule
that the declarations or acts, including written as well as oral
utterances, should have occurred during the existence of the
criminal association, and that they were designed to aid in its
accomplishment. If subsequent, they are narrative simply
and constitute no part of the transaction.*
1 As to confessions, see §§ 96-98. Ill ; Kehoe v. Com., 85 Pa, St. 137;
2Rutherfordv.Schattman,119N.Y. Tow v. State, 22 Tex. App. 175;
604 ; 23 N. E. Rep. 440 ; Foster v. United States v. McKee, 3 Dill. C. C.
Thrasher, 45 Ga. 517 ; Reid v. Louisi- 546 ; Smith v. State (Tex., 1893), 20 S.
ana, etc. Co., 29 La. Ann. 388 ; Ham- W. Rep. 876 ; People v. Collins, 64 Cal.
ilton V. People, 29 Mich. 195 ; HolUday 293 ; Rya n v. State, 83 Wis. 486 ; Deak-
V. Jackson, 30 Mo. App. 263; Wig- ers v. Temple, 41 Pa. St. 234; Smith v.
gins V. Thrasher, 9 Iowa, 194; Com. State, 53 Ala. 407; Colt v. Eves, 12
v. Crowninshield, 10 Pick. 497; Conn. 243 ; Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y.
Ormsby v. People, 53 N. Y. 472; Kel- 565; Philpot v. Taylor, 75 111. 309;
sey V. Murphy, 36 Pa. St. 78 ; United State v. Ross, 29 Mo. 32 ; Mask v.
States V. McKee, 3 Dill. (U. S.) 546 ; State, 33 Miss. 405 ; Bryce v. Buttler,
Moore v. Shields, 121 Ind. 267 ; Cars- 70 N. C. 585 ; Lees v. Lamprey, 43
kadon v. WiUiams, 7 W. Va. 784; N. H. 13; Dart v. Walker, 3 Daly
Triplettv. Goff, 83 Va. 784; McGraw (N. Y), 138.
V. Com. (Ky., 1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 279 ; * Spies v. People, 122 IlL 1 ; State v.
Amos V. State (Ala., 1893), 11 S. Rep. Melrose, 98 Mo. 594; Kunde v. State,
434. The declaration may be admit- 22 Tex. App. 65 ; State v. Grant (Iowa,
ted prior to the proof of the conspir- 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 120 ; State v.
acy. Hall v. State (Fla., 1893), 13 Larkin, 49 N. H. 39 ; State v. Minton
S. Rep. 449 ; State v. Grant (Iowa, ' (Mo., 1898), 22 S. Wi Rep. 808 ; Card
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 120. v. State, 109 Ind. 418 ; Searles v. State,
3 McRae V. State, 71 Ga. 96 ; Amer. 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 331; People v.
F. Co. V. United States, 3 Pet 358, Irwin, 77 Cal. 494 ; People v. McQuade,
365; People v. Kerr, 6 N. Y. S. 674; 110 N. Y. 284; People v. Kief, 13 N.
Rex V. Hardy, 24 How. St. Tr. 451 Y. S. 896; 58 Hun, 837.
et seq. ; State v. McCahill, 72 Iowa,
96 ADMISSIONS. [§ 70.
So -where a conspiracy was shown to exist, a book purport-
ing to be a treatise upon modern methods of employing ex-
plosives to secure a radical revolution in the social system
was admitted to illustrate the purpose of the conspirators
where several of them were tried for murder. The book was
distributed' among the members of an association to which
the conspirators belonged, was commended by their newspa-
pers, and was constantly consulted and circulated by them.'
§ "yO. Assignor and assignee. — An assignee of a chose in
action or chattel, with the exception of a lona fide holder of
a negotiable instrument not yet due, is bound by the admis-
sions of his assignor, made prior to the assignment, disparag-
ing or qualifying the title by which the assignor holds.' But
declarations in disparagement of title to property, real or per-
sonal, in order to be valid as admissions against the grantee
or assignee, must be made while the grantor or the assignor
is in possession.' Thus, the admissions, made after the assign-
ment, of one who has made an assignment for the benefit of
creditors are not admissible against the assignee to set aside
the assignment,* unless it is shown that a conspiracy has been
1 Spies V. People, 132 111. 1 ; 3 Am. Fovvner, 69 N. Y. 404 ; Plainer v.
St. Eep. 320; 9 Cr. L. Mag. 839. See, Platner, 78 N. Y. 90; Gidney v. Lo-
also, McRae v. State, 71 Ga. 96 ; Ke- gan, 79 N. C. 314 ; Hunt v. Haven, 56
hoe V. Com., 85 Pa. St. 127; People N. H. 87; Ten Eyok v. Ruuk, 26 N.
T. Geiger, 49 Cal. 643; State v. Mc- J. L. 513; Willi'ard v. Williard, 56
Cahill, 72 Iowa, 131. , Pa. St 119.
2 Alger V. Andrews, 47 Yt. 338; 3 Mobile Bank v. McDonnell, 89
Crow V. Watkins, 48 Ark. 169 ; Lears Ala, 434 ; Shipley v. Fox, 69 Md. 572 ;
V. Rice, 65 Mioh. 97 ; Howell v. Crow v. Watkins, 48 Ark. 169 ; Davis
Howell, 47 Ga. 493 ; Roberts v. Med- v. Evans, 103 Mo. 164 ; Flagler v.
bury, 133 Mass. 100; Alexander v. Wheeler, 40 Hun, 135,178; Waldon
Caldwell, 55 Ala. 517 ; Dodge v. Freed- v. Purvis, 73 Cal. 518 ; Harrell v.
man, etc. Co., 93 XT. S. 579 ; Roebke Culpepper, 47 Ga. 685 ; Marion v.
V. Andrews, 26 Wis. 311 ; Downs v. Hoyt, 73 id. 117 ; Proctor v. Cole, 164
Beldon, 46 Vt. 674 ; Harrington v. Ind. 373 ; Benson v. Lundy, 53 Iowa,
Chambers, 3 Utah, 94 ; McFadden v. 356 ; Randegger v. Ehrhardt, 51 111.
Ellmaker, 53 Cal. 348; McSweeney 101 ; Deasy v. Thurman, 1 Idaho, 775 ;
V. McMillan, 96 Ind. 398 ; Rarasbot- Roberts v. Medbury, 183 Mass. 100 ;
torn V. Phelps, 18 Conn. 378 ; Mueller Gordon v. Ritenour, 87 Mo. 54.
V. Rebhan, 94 111. 142 ; Robinson v. « Wynne v. Glydwell, 17 Ind. 446 ;
Eobinson, 23 Iowa, 247 ; Fellows v. Burt v. McKinstry, 4 Minn. 146 ;
Smith, 130 Mass. 378; Tyres v. Ken- Frear v. Evertsen, 30 Johns. (N. Y.)
nedy, 126 Ind. 538 ; Adams V. David- 143; Myers v. Kinzie, 26 111. 36;
son, 10 N. Y. 309; Chadwick v. Bartlett v. Marshall, 3 Bibb (Ky.),
in.]
ADMISSIONS.
97
formed between them to defraud the creditors, when the dec-
larations of the assignor are admissible as a part of the res
gestm} The rule by which such admissions are receivable
against the assignee is not applicable to bind the holder of a
promissory note which is taken without notice and before
maturity.^ If the promissory note is transferred after it is
■due, the declarations of the indorser, made while the note was
in his possession, are admissible against the indorsee to prove
payment or any equitable defense which may have existed
between him and the maker.'
§71. Wife's admission — When binding on husband. —
The declaration.s of a wife are not to be regarded as the ad-
missions of the husband unless authority to make them has
been conferred upon her by him.'' If they are binding it is
467; Hey wood v. Reed, 4 Gray
(Mass.), 574 ; Carlton v. Baldwin, 27
Tex. 573 ; Peck v. Grouse, 46 Barb.
<!Sr. Y.) 151 ; Bates v. Ableman, 13
Wis. 644.
1 Tibbals v. Jacobs, 31 Conn. 428 ;
Ewing V. Gay, 12 Ind. 64 ; Souder v.
Scheohterly, 91 Pa. St 83 ; Hatchings
V. Castle, 48 Cal. 153; Hodge v.
Thompson, 9 Ala. 131 ; Boyd v. Jones,
60 Mo. 454 ; De France v. Howard, 4
Iowa, 534 ; Cuyler v. McCartney, 33
Barb. (N. Y.) 165 ; Perkins v. Towle,
59 N. H. 583.
2 Blanc Jour v. Tutt, 33 Mo. 576
Haokett v. Martin, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 77
Paige V. Cagwin, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 361
Bristol V. Daun, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 142
Wilson V. Bowden, 113 Mass. 433
Osborn v. Eobbins, 37 Barb. (N. Y.)
481 ; Washburn v. Ramsdell, 17 Vt.
299.
3 Sandif er v. Howard, 59 III. 346 ;
Glauton r. .Griggs, 5 Ga. 424 ; Dren-
non V. Smith, 3 Head (Tenn.), 389 ;
Miller v. Bingham, 39 Vt. 83 ; Pilcher
V. Kerr, 7 La. Ann. 344 ; Sylvester v.
Crapo, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 92 ; Kane v.
Tarbit, 23 111. App. 311 ; Robb v.
Schmidt, 35 Mo. 390; McLanathan
V. Patten, 39 Md. 143 ; Fisher v. True,
7
38 id. 534 ; Hutchins v. Hutchina, 98
N. Y, 56 ; Sanford v. EUithorpe, 95
N. Y. 48; Headen v. Womack, 88
N. C. 468 ; Hirsohfeld v. Williamson,
18 Nev. 66 ; McLaughlin v. McLaugh-
lin, 91 Pa. St 463; Downs v. Belden,
46 Vt 674; Tierney v. Corbett, 2
Mackey, 364.
« Edwards v. Tyler (111., 1893), 31
N. E. Rep. 313; Rochelle v. Harri-
son, 8 Port (Ala.) 351 ; Perry v. Gra-
ham, 18 Ala. 823 ; White v. Portland
(Conn,, 1893), 26 Atl. Rep. 343;
Snohll V. Met E. Co., 19 D. C. 399 ;
Hunt V. Strew, 33 Mich. 85 ; Johnson
V. Sherwin, 3 Gray (Mass.), 374;
Evans v. Evans, 155 Pa. St 573 ; May
V. Little, 3 ired. L. (N. C.) 37; Gaf-
field V. Scott, 40 111. App. 380 ; Lay
Grae v. Peterson, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.)
338 ; Riley v. Suydam, 4 Barb. (N. Y.)
333; Park v. Hopkins, 3 Bailey
(S. C), 408 ; Berg v. Warner, 47 Minn.
350; Winkler v. Schlager, 19 N. Y. S.
100; Higham v. Vanosdol, 101 Ind.
160; Queener v. Morrow, 1 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 123; Baker v.Witten (Okl.,
1893), 39 Pac. Rep. 491 ; Norfolk Nat
Bank v. Wood, 33 Neb. 113; 49 N.
W. Rep. 958 ; Rose v. Chapman, 44
Mioh. 313; Coryell v. State, 63 Ind.
98
iDMISSIOIlB.
[§n.
not because of the legal character of the marriage relation,
but solely because the husband has constituted her his agent,'
and given her authority to act for him.
The considerations regulating this subject are analogous to
those which determine the existence of the relation of prin-
cipal and agent, modified somewhat by the peculiar position
of the parties and the intimacy which usually exists between
them. At common law, in consequence of the merger of
legal identity of the wife in that of the husband, her admis-
sions did not bind him where he sued as her representative
during coverture to reduce her choses in action to possession.'^
In consequence, however, of the modern statutes by which
a married woman is enabled to carry on business and to act
in general with the powers of &feme sole, this rule is of minor
importance and of infrequent application. In any event, if
the existence of the relationship of principal and agent is
shown to exist by evidence aliunde,^ the statements of the
wife relating to the business of the agency, made during its
continuance and within the scope of her authority, are re-
ceivable against the husband.*
307; Goodrich v. Tracy, 43 Vt. 314;
Donaldson v. Everhart, 50 Kan. 718.
The declarations of the husband are
not, where no agency exists, admis-
sible in an action against the sepa-
rate estate of the wife. Clapp v.
Engledow, 83 Tex. 390; Martin v.
Rutt, 13.7 Pa. St 380; Mclntire v.
Costello, 6 N. Y. S. 397; Woodruff
V. White, 35 Neb. 745 ; Hunt v. Poole,
139 Mass. 334 ; Sanson v. Brooks, 68
Ala 348 ; State v. Bank, 10 Mo. App.
483 ; Keller v, Railway Co., 27 Minn.
178; Kingen v. State, 50 Ind. 537.
But where husband and wife claim
by adverse possession, his admissions
are binding on her solely by reason
of the joint interest. Hurley v.
Lockett, 73 Tex. 363. Cf. Holton v,
Carter (Ga., 1893), 15 S. E. Rep. 819,
1 See § 73a.
'^Turner v. State, 50 Miss. 351, 354
Meredith v. Footner, 11 M. & W. 202 ;
Burnett v. Burkhead, 31 Ark. 77;
Jordan v. Hubbard, 26 Ala. 433; Coe
V. Turner, 57 Conn. 937.
3 Butler V. Price, 115 Mass. 578;
Hunt V. Strew, 33 Mich. 85 ; Deck v.
Johnson, 1 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.)
497. The mere existence of the rela-
tion of husb'and and wife will never,
it is held, render the admission of
one binding on the other. Deck v.
Johnson, supra; Schmidt v. Keen,
10 N. Y. S. 367.
< Chamberlain v. Davis, 33 N. H.
131 ; McLean v, Jagger, 13 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 494; Murphy v. Hubert, 16
Pa. St 50 ; Colgan v. Phillips, 7 Rich.
(S. C.) 359; Robertson v. Brost, 83
111. 116 ; Arhdt v. Harshaw, 53 Wis.
369; Bradford v. Williams, 2 Md.
Oh. 1, 3 ; Lunay v. Vantyne, 40 Vt
501; Town v. Lamphire, 37 id. 53;
Thomas v. Hargrove, Wright (Ohio),
595.
§§ 72, 73.] ADMISSIONS. 99
§ 72. Admissions of inhabitants of towns. — At common
law the admission of a parishioner or inhabitant of an incor-
porated political division was receivable against the corpora-
tion,^ In this country this rule is repudiated. By analogy
to private corporations, the declarations of the residents of
municipal or quasi-raumciipa.\ corporations as towns and coun-
ties are not receivable against the corporation, even under cir-
cumstances where the action is in form against the inhabitants,
and their individual property is, as in New England, subject
to execution"on the judgment which may be rendered.^
§ 73. Admissions of strangers to the record — Principal
and surety — Admissions of real parties. — The admissions of
the real parties in interest, though they may not be parties to
the record, are usually receivable. Thus it has been held that
the- adrfiissions of a debtor are receivable against the surety,'
of the guarantor against his principal,* of the actual bene-
ficiary in an insurance taken in the name of another,' of a
deputy-sheriff against the sheriff,' of the deceased intestate
against the administrator.' So where an individual has a real
interest in the litigation, although he may not be an actual
party of record, yet, so long as the actual defendant may in
turn recover over against him, he is bound by the judgment,
which vifould then be evidence against him, and his admissions
are receivable against himself and against the nominal de-
fendant.' But this admission by the real party in interest to
be binding on the party to the suit must be made while he had
an interest, that is, during the existence of joint interest or
privity, and it must relate to the transaction in which both
1 Rex V. Hardwick, 11 East, 579 ; ' Keifer v. Carnsi, 7 D. C. 156.
Reg. V. Adderbury, 5 Q. B. 187. 8 Bank v. Smith 12 Allen, 243 ;
sLandaff's Petition, 34 N. H. 164; Weed v. Kellogg, 6 McLean, 44;
Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige, 510 ; Bond v. Ward, 1 Nott & McCord,
Burlington v. Calais, 1 Vt. 385 ; Low 201 ; McShane v. Bank, 73 Md. 135 ;
' V. Perliins, 10 Vt. 532 ; Davis v. Savage v. Balch, 8 Greenl. 27 ; Union
Rochester, 66 Hun, 629. See Tiede- Bank v. Edwards, 1 Swan (Tenn.);
man on Municipal Corporations, 208 ; Atlas Bank v. Brownell, 9 R I.
§ 103, 160.' 168 ; Bartlett v. Delprat, 4 Mass. 702,
s Walker v. Forbes, 25 Ala. 189. 708 ; MacGready v. Scheuck, 41 La.
* Chapel V. Washburn, 11 Ind. 393 ; Ann. 456 ; Bayly v. Bryant, 24 Pick.
Brown v. Munger, 16 Vt 12._ (Mass.) 198 ; Clark v. Carrington, 7
5 Bell V. Ansly, 16 East, 141. Cranch, 308, 322 ; Markland v. Kim-
6 Snowball v. Goodricke, 4 B. & Ad. mell, 87 Ind. 566.
541.
100 ADMISSIONS. I § 73.
are concerned.' Thus, where it is sought to introduce the
admission of the principal in a suit against a surety, it should
be remembered that the latter is only obligated for the prin-
cipal's acts and not for his language. If, therefore, the ad-
mission does not constitute a part of the res gestce, or, in other
words, if it is not a verbal act, then the surety is not bound
thereby.^ So where payment is guarantied for goods sold
and delivered, an acknowledgment by the purchaser of the
goods, made subsequent to the delivery, that he has received
the goods, is not admissible in an action against the surety
for the price.'
The admissions of a fiduciary olficial, made after an embez-
zlement or other breach of trust, are not competent or receiv-
able as admissions against his surety where an action is brought
on the bond to recover for the official misfeasance.* The ad-
missions of a nominal party, as of a trustee or guardian, made
subsequent to the bringing of the suit, are not binding on the
party he represents.'' So, too, the statements of a trustee,
administrator ' or guardian, made before he was appointed or
before the suit in which he sues in' his representative capacity
was commenced, are not receivable as admissions against him.'
iChapel V.Washburn, 11 Ind. 393; 983; 42 Minn. 468; Otis v. Van
Brown v. Hunger, 16 Vt 13. It has Storoh, 15 R, I. 41.
been held that the admission of a ^ Longenecker v. Hyde, 6 Binn. 1.
surety is competent against the prin- * Dawes' v. Shedd, 15 Mass. 69 ; Stet-
cipal. Chapel v. Washburn, 11 Ind. son v. City Bank, 3 Ohio St 167, 177
393 ; Brown v. Hunger, 16 Vt. 13 ; Blair v. Insurance Co., 10 Mo. 559
Brockway v. Petted (Mich., 1890), 45 Eepublica v. Davis, 3 Yeates, 128
N. W. Eep. 61 ; Hall v. Brackett, 63 Hotchkiss v. Lyon, 2 Blackf. 333
N. H. 509. Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 703.
2 Lee V. Brown, 21 Kan. 458 ; Dex- » Sykes v. Lewis, 17 Ala. 261 ; Bar-
ter V. Clemans, 17 Pick. 175 ; Labaree geant v. Sargeant, 18 Vt. 371 ; Dazey
V. Klesterman (Neb., 1893), 49 N. W. v. Mills, 10 111. 67 ; Hough v. Barton,
Rep. 1103; 33 Neb. 150; Bank of 30 Vt. 455 ; Mayes v. Inman, 3 Swan
Monroe v. Gifford, 70 Iowa, 580
Keegan v. Carpenter, 47 Ind. 597
Cheltenham Co. v. Cook, 44 Mo. 39
(Tenn.), 80.
sPrud. Ins. Co. v. Fredericks, 41
111. App. 419.
Chemsford Co. v. Demarest, 7 Gray 7 Mertz v. Detweiler, 8 W. & S,
(Mass.), 1 ; Hatch v. Elkins, 64 N. Y. (Pa.) 376 ; Plant v. McEwen, 4 Conn.
489 ; White v. German Bank, 9 Heisk. 544 ; Moore v. Butler, 48 N. H. 161 ;
(Tenn.) 473 ; Ayer v. Getty, 46 Hun, Fraser v. Marsh, 3 Stark. 41 ; Legge
387; Bank v. Darragh, 1 Hun, 113; v. Edmonds, 25 L. J. Ch. 125.
Bardwell v. Dewitt, 44 N. W. Rep.
§ 73a.] ADMISSIONS. 101
§ 73a. The declarations of agents. — The legal unity of
principal and agent in respect to matters growing out of the
agency or to which it relates is the basis for the rule that the
declarations or admissions of an agent, made during the ex-
istence of the agency and relating to its object, are binding
on the principal.' Thus, an agent to sell may by his admis-
sions bind his principal upon the question of the value of the
property ; ^ and where a principal directs some third person
to pay money or ship goods to his agent, the acknowledgment
or receipt of the agent is an admission of the principal.' If
made during the period of the continuance of the agency and
by reason of some special or express authorization by the
principal to make the given admission or declaration, then the
words of the agent are admissible against his principal upon
the same grounds that the latter's own admission would be
evidence against him. But where no express authority is
given to make the declaration, and where the agent is a special
agent, and the only ground for claiming its admission as orig-
inal evidence is an implied authority to make it, derived from
the existence of the agency, then the declaration is admitted
solely as a part of the res gestm, and accordingly must be con-
temporaneous with and explanatory of it.
Unauthorized admissions made subsequent to the transac-
tion to which they relate, and merely narrative of it, are not
binding upon the principal, though the relation of principal
and agent exists for other purposes.* Thus, the declarations
• Hawk V. Applegate, 37 Mo. App. Noble, 60 Ga. 367 ; Adams v. Hum-
32; Davis v. Eochester, 66 Hun,' 639; phreys, 54 Ga. 396; Pavey v. Wint-
"VV. U. Tel. Co. V. Bennett, 1 Tex. Civ. rode, 87 Ind. 379 ; Mix v. Osby, 62
App. 28 ; MoElwee v. Trowbridge, 68 111. 193 ; Hitchings v. St Louis
Huu, 28; Loomis v. N. Y. Cent. R Transp. Co., 68 Hun, 33; Yoouin v.
E. Co. (Mass., 1893), 34 N. E. Eep. 30; Barnes, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 496; Peck v.
Mars V. Virginia Home Ins. Co., 17 Kitchie, 06 Mo. 114; Hammett v.
S. C. 514 ; Josephi v. Mady Clo. Co. Emerson, 27 Me. 308.
(Mont, 1893), 33 Pac. Eep. 1 ; Citizens' 2 Bank v. Gidrot, 19 Ga. 431.
Gaslight Co. v. Granger, 19 111. App. s click v. Hamilton, 7 Rich. (S. C.)
201 ; Eowell v. Klein, 44 Ind. 290 ; 65 : Webster v. Clark, 30 N. H. 245.
Donnel v. Clark, 12 Kan. 154; Ham- o Phelps v. James (Iowa, 1893), 53
ilton V. Iowa Co. (Iowa, 1893), 53 N. N. W. Eep. 74; Yordy v. Marshall
W. Eep. 496; Coyle v. Baltimore, etc. Co. (Iowa, 1893), 53 N,W. Eep. 298;
R Co., 11 W. Va. 94; Bohannan v. St Louis, etc. Co. v. Sweet (Ark.,
Chapman, 13 Ala. 641; Galceran v, 1893), 21 S. W. Eep. 787; Mobile, etc.
102
ADMISSIONS.
[•§ 73a.
of an engineer or conductor of a train, made after an accident
and constituting no part of the transaction, are not receivable,
as he has no Implied authority to make statements which will
be binding on his principal.' So a corporation is not bound
by the admissions of its officers, trustees, directors or stock-
holders unless either they have been specially authorized to
make the admission or it has been made as a part of some
authorized transaction;^ for it is a general rule that ad mis-
Co. V. Klein, 43 III. App. 63; Louis-
ville, etc. Co. V. Foley (Ky., 1893), 31
H. W. Rep. 866; Bradford v. Will-
iams, 2 Md. Ch. 1 ; Phelps v. George's
Creek, etc. R. Co., 60 Md. 536 ; Gar-
field V. Knight's Ferry, etc. Co., 14
Cal. 85 ; Tillinghast v. Nourse, 14 Ga.
641; Chicago, etc. Road v. Fietsam,
19 111. App. 55 ; Board of Com'rs of
Franklin County v. Bunting, 111 Ind.
143; Bietrich v. Baltimore, etc. R
Co., 58 Md. 347; Aldridge v. Mid-
land, etc. Co., 78 Mo. 559; Craig v.
Gilbreth, 47 Me. 416 ; Dome v. South-
work Manuf'g Co., 11 Cush. (Malss.)
205 ; Batcheldor v. Emery, 20 N. H.
165 ; Murphy v. May, 9 Bush (Ky.),
33 ; Clark v. Anderson, 14 Daly, 464 ;
Winter v. Burt, 31 Ala. 33; Michigan
Cent. R. Co. v. Gougar, 55 IlL 503 ;
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Fray, 12 Pac.
Rep. 98; 35 Kan. 700; Osgood v.
Bringolf, 32 Iowa, 265 : Hawk v. Ap-
plegate, 37 Mo. App. 32; Gooch v.
Bryant, 13 Me. 386 ; Lowry v. Harris,
13 Minn. 166; Jones v. Jones, 120 N.
Y. 589 ; McDermot v. Hannibal, etc.
R. Co., 73 Mo. 516 ; Burnham v. Ellis,
) 39 Me. 319; Memphis, etc. R. Co. v.
Cock, 64 Miss. 713; Converse v.
Blumvich, 14 Mich. 109; Woods v.
Banks, 14 N. H. 101 ; Demeritt v.
Meserve, 39 N. H. 521 ; Runk v. Ten
Eyck, 24 N. J. L. 750; American
Steamship Co. v. Landreth, 103 Pa.
St 131 ; Raiford v. French, 11 Rich.
(S. C.) 367 ; Austin v. Chittenden, 33
yt. 53 ; Goetz v. Kansas City Bank,
119 U. S. 318, 551; Packet Co. v.
Clough, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 528; Fogg
V. Child, 18 Barh (N. Y.) 246; Patten
V. Messenger, 25 Pa. St. 393 ; Cobb v.
Johnson, 2 Sneed (Tenn.), 73 ; Barn-
ard V. Henry, 35 Vt. 289.
1 Fort Smith Oil Co. v. Slover (Ark.,
1894), 34 S. W. Rep. 106 ; Wendt v.
Chicago, etc. Co. (S. D., 1894), 54 N.
W. Rep. 226 ; East Tennessee, etc. R.
Co. V. Maloy, 3 S. E. Rep. (Ga.) 941 ;
Furst V. Second Ave. R. Co., 73 N. Y.
543; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Car-
jow, 73 III. 348 ; Ballard v. Manuf'g
Co., 15 N. Y. S. 405. The printed
rules of arailioad company are ad-
missible as its admissions. Railroad
V. Ward, 35 IlL App. 423.
2 Bullock V. Consumers' Lumber
Co. (Cal., 1893), 31 Pac. Rep. 867 ; Rail-
way Co. V. Levy (Ind. Sup., 1893), 83
N. E. Rep. 815 ; Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v.
Levy (Ind., 1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 345 ;
Johnson v. East Tenn., Va. & P. Ry.
Co. (Ga., 1893j, 17 S. E. Rep. 21 ; La
Rue V. St. Anthony & D. Elevator
Co. (S. D., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 806;
Pittsburg & L. S. Iron Co. v. Kirk-
patrick, 93 Mich. 353 ; Van Doren v.
Bailey, 48 Minn. 305; Missouri Pa-
cific Ry. Co. V. Sherwood, 84 Tex.
125 ; Bellow v. Fuller, id. 450 ; Rodes
V. Elevator Co., 49 Minn. 370 ; Weeks
V. Inhabitants, 156 Mass. 289 ; Thomas
V. Rutledge, 67 111. 213 ; Jacksonville,
etc. Co. V. Pen. Trans. Co. (Fla., 1890),
9 S. Rep. 661 ; Peek v. Detroit Nov-
elty Works, 39 Mich. 313 ; Lime Rock
Bank v. Hewitt, 53 Me. 581 ; Walker
v. Dunspaugh, 30 N. Y. 170 ; Abbott
§ IZa.]
ADMISSIONS.
lOS
sions or declarations of an agent which are narrative in char-
acter must, in order to bind the principal, be within the scope
of his power, whether general or special, or must relate to
the subject of his agency and be a part of it.* Accordingly
the principal is never bound by the admission or declaration
of a person made by the latter before he has become an agent
or after the agency has terminated.^
As regards written admissions under seal, no particular
'form of words is necessary to bind the principal, provided
the instrument is sealed with the principal's seal and signed
with his name by the agent for him. If the instrument does
not show that it is intended to be the admission of the prin-
cipal, it will not generally bind him, though the agent in
signing may have affixed his title or indicated that he signs
V. Seventy-six L. & W. Co., 87 Cal.
333; Pemigewasset Bank v. Rogers,
18 N. H. 255 ; Green v. North Buffalo,
56 Pa. St. 110 ; Salado College v. Da-
vis, 47 Tex. 131 ; Wellington v. Bos-
ton R R. Co. (Mass., 1893), 33 N. E.
Rep. 393; Sohroepel v. Syracuse
Plankroad, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 94;
Low V. Connecticut, etc. R. Co., 45
]Sr. H. 870; Cleveland, C, C. & I. Ry.
Co. V. Closser, 136 Ind. 348. See Res
Gestae, g§ 54^57.
1 Beasley v. Fruit Packing Co., 93
Cal. 388; Ohio & M. Ry. Co. v. Stein
(Ind., 1893), 81 N. E. Rep. 180; Straw-
bridge V. Spann, 8 Ala. 830 ; Phelps
V. James (Iowa, 1893), 53 N. W. Rep.
374; Perkins v. Burnett, 3 Root
(Conn.), 30 ; Mobile, etc. Co. v. Klein,
43 111. App. 68 ; Galceran v. Noble, 66
Ga. 367 ; Maltby v. Kirkland, 48 Fed.
Rep. 760; Mix' v. Osby, 63 111. 193;
Covington, etc. Road v. Ingles, 15 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 637 ; Idaho Ford Co. v.
Firemen's Ins. Co. (Utah, 1893), 29 Pac.
Rep. 836; Yordy v. Marshall Co.
<Iowa, 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 298;
Outchess V. Gutchess, 66 Barb. (N. Y.)
483 ; Telephone Co. v. Thompson, 112
Pa, St 118; Vassar v. Knickerbocker
Ice Co., 17 N. Y. S. 182 ; Holt v. Spo-
kane R. Co. (Idaho, 1894), 35 Pao.
Rep. 39. Where the authority of the
agent is disputed by the principal,
the declarations and acts of the al-
leged agent are not received in favor
of a third party td prove the exist-
ence of the agency. Mussey v,
Beeoher, 3 Gush. (Mass.) 517 ; Trust
ees, etc. v. Bledsoe, 5 Ind. 133 ; Brig-
ham V. Peters, 1 Gray (Mass.), 145
Dowden v. Cryler (N. J., 1893), 26 Atl
Rep. 941.
2 Bensley v. Brockway, 27 111. App.
410; Levy v. Mitchell, 6 Ark. 138
Wiggins V. Leonard, 9 Iowa, 194
Haven v. Brown, 7 Me. 421 ; Stiles v.
Western R. Co., 8 Met. (Mass.) 44
Williams v. Williamson, 6 Ired. L,
(N. C.) 381; Raiford v. French, 11
Rich. (S. C), 367 ; Colquitt v. Thomas,
8 Ga. 268; Watermann v. Peet, 11
111. 648; Renolds v. Rowley, 3 La.
Ann. 890; Polleys v. Ocean Ins. Co.,
14 Me. 141 ; Caldwell v. Garner, 31
Mo. 131; Vail v. Judson, 4 E. D.
Smith (N. Y.), 165 ; Brigham v. Carr,
31 Tex. 143; Rahm v. Deig, 131 Ind.
283; Davis v. Whitesides, 1 Dana
(Ky.), 177.
104
ADMISSIONS.
[§V4.
in a representative capacity,' as by inserting in some part of
the instrument the name of the principal.^
Declarations of an agent are inadmissible to prove the ex-
istence of the agency ' or to show that the extent of the
authority actually conferred was larger or smaller than is-
alleged.*
• § 74. Admissions toy attorneys of record. — The declara-
tions of an attorney are only binding as admissions upon his
client when they are formal and deliberate, as where written
stipulations are entered into to facilitate the prosecution of
the suit by dispensing with some technical rule of procedure '
or agreeing upon certain proof which it is proposed to pro-
duce.^ But verbal statements by the attorney in casual con-
1 Briggs T. Partridge, 64 N. Y. 357 ;
Meech v. Smith, 7 "Wend. 315 ; Whit-
ford V. Laidler, 94 N. Y. 155 ; Dayton
V. Warne, 43 N. J. L. 659 ; Mahoney
V. McLean, 26 Minn. 415 ; Taylor v.
Association, 68 Ala. 229 ; Hancock v.
Yunker, 83 111. 308.
2Faw V. Meals, 65 Ga. 711 ;' Robin-
son V. Kanawha, etc. Co., 8 N. E.
Rep. 683 ; Sturdivant v. Hull, 59 Me.
173 ; Tilden v. Barnard, 43 Mich. 376.
8 Hardy v. Cheny, 43 Vt. 417;
Rhodes v. Lowry, 54 Ala. 4 ; Duryea
V. Vosburgh (N. Y, 1890), 84 N. E.
Rep. 308 ; French v. Wade, 35 Kan.
391; Haughton v. Maurer, 55 Mich.
323; Lafayette, etc. Co. v. Elman,
30 Ind. 83 ; Seymour v. Matteson, 42
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 496; Osgood v.
Pacey, 23 111. App. 116; Bowker v.
Belong, 141 Mass. 351.
1 Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Ward, 90
111. 545 ; Chicago R. Co. v. Fox, 41 id.
106; Galbreath v. Cole, 61 Ala. 139;
StoUenmaeck v. Thatcher, 115 Mass.
334 ; Lolmer v. Insurance Co., 131 id.
439; Mapp v. Phillips, 33 Ga. 72;
Carter v. Burnham, 31 Ark. 213;
Dawson v. Landreaux, 39 La. Ann.
363 ; Grover, etc. Co. v. Polhemus, 34
Mich. 347 ; Stringham v. Insurance
Co., 4 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 315.
6 Hanson v. Hoit, 14 N. H. 56.
*Voisin V. Insurance Co., 67 Hun,.
365; McRea v. Insurance Bank, 1&
Ala. 755 ; Mather v. Phelps, 2 Root
(Conn.), 150 ; Perry v. Simpson Mfg.
Co., 40 Conn. 313; Worley v. Hin-
man (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 866 ;
Proctor V. Old Colony R Co., 154
Mass. 251; 28 N. E. Rep. 13; Martin
V. Capital Ins. Co., 53 N. W. Rep. 534 ;
Reynders v. Hindman, 88 Ga. 314.
Of. Milbank v. Jones, 17 N. Y. S. 464.
An attorney cannot compromise a
suit without express authority (Maye
V. Cogdell, 69 N. C. 93; Repp v.
Wiles (Ind., 1892), 29 N. E. Rep. 441 ;
Holker v. Parker, 7 Cranch, 436;
Peters v. Lawson, 66 Tex. 336 ; Bar-
rett V. Railroad Co., 45 N. Y. 628, 638 ;
Granger v. Batchelder, 54 Vt 348;
Crotty V. Egle, 85 W. Va. 143 ; White-
hall V. Kellar, 100 Pa. St. 89 ; Martin
V. Insurance Co. (Iowa, 1893), 52 N.
W. Rep. 534); though he may submit
a demand to arbitration. Brooks v.
New Durham, 55 N. H. 559 ; McElrath
V. Middleton (Ga., 1893), 14 S. E. Rep.
906 ; Talbot v. McGee, 4 B. Hon. (Ky.)
377 ; White v. Davidson, 8 Md. 169 ;
Williams v. Tracy, 95 Pa. St 308.
§H.]
ADMISSIONS.
10&
versation ' cannot be regarded as the admissions of the client,
though pertaining to the subject of litigation, for the attorney-
is the agent of the client only so far as the management of
the cause which has been committed to him in court is con-
cerned,^ and upon general principles cannot bind his principal
outside of the scope of his authority.'
Written admissions by an attorney, made either before
beginning suit or after its termination and referring to it,
are never admissible against the client unless they were ex-
pressly authorized by him.''
A client is estopped by the admissions of his attorney, in the
absence of gross mistake or fraud, where, relying on such ad-
missions, reciprocal admissions have been made by his oppo-
nent.^ If the authority of the attornej'^ to make the admis-
sions exists generally, his admissions, when not acted on by the
other side, are prima fade evidence only, their sole effect
being merely to relieve the adverse party from showing the
facts involved in them.^
1 Angle V. Bilby, 35 Neb. 595.
2 See as to admissions of agents,
§73ffl.
3 Bank v. Anderson, 28 S. C. 148 ;
Perry v. Simpson Co., 40 Conn. 313 ;
Lord V. Bigelow, 134 Mass. 185 ; Lewis
V. Duane, 68 Hun, 38 ; Underwood v.
Hart, 33 Vt 120 ; Young v. Wright,
1 Campb. 139; Wright v. Dickinson
(Mich., 1890), 42 N. W. Rep. 849. An
unauthorized communication by the
attorney to a person against whom
the client intends to bring suit is not
binding on him. Salomon, etc. Co.
V. Jones, 34 Kan. 443. So the malice
of plaintiff in an attachment suit
cannot be shown by the admissions
of his attorney. Floyd v. Hamilton,
33 Ala. 235.
■t Proctor V. Old Colony R Co., 28
N. E. Rep. 13; Morris v. Balkham, 12
S. W. Rep. 970; 75 Tex. Ill; Jane-
way V. Skerritt, 30 N. J. L. 97; Mar-
shall V. Cliff, 4 Camp. 133 ; Walden v.
Bolton, 55 Mo. 405 ; Moffitt v. Wither-
spoon, 10 Ired. L. 185; Murray v.
Chase, 134 Mass. 93; Reineman v.
Blair, 96 Pa. St. 153. If the attorney
is authorized to sijeak for his client,
the admission of the attorney's clerk
is the admission of the attorney. Tay-
lor V. Williams, 2 B. & Ad. 845; Grif-
fith V. Williams, 1 T. R 710. An ad-
mission of the truth of a fact by an
attorney in one suit is admissible in
another suit only where the client
authorizes it by his acquiescence in
it. Nichols Y. Jones, 33 Mo. App.
657; Morris v. Balkham, 75 Tex. 111.
* See post, § 83 ; Wilson v. Spring,
64 111. 18 ; Wheeler v. Alderman, 84
S. C. 533 ; Smith v. Milliken, 2 Minn.
319.
6 See §g 82-84; Truby v. Seybert, 12
Pa. St. 101; Floyd v. Hamilton, 23
Ala. 335 ; People v. Garcia, 25 Cal.
531; Moulton v. Bowker, 59 N. Y.
533; C4ssels v. Usry, 51 Ga. 631;
Bathgate v. Haskin, 59 N. Y. 533.
106
ADMISSIONS.
[§75.
§ 16. Oifei'S of compromise — Admissions under duress.—
Admissions involved in overtures for a settlement of litigation
or in offers of compromise understood to be without prejudice
will not be admissible in evidence against a party.' Evidence
of an offer to pay a su^n of money to stop litigation or buy
peace, without reference to the justice of the demand, is al-
ways rejected on grounds of public policy and from the fact
that such evidence is usually wholly irrelevant.'*
If the admission of a collateral fact tends to admit the
merits of the case, it may be presumed from the circumstances
that the admission was confidential and without prejudice, ^
and an agreement will be implied that it was not to be used
against the party.'
1 Huetteman v. Viesselmann, 48 Mo.
App. 583; Darby v. Roberts (Tex.,
1893), 23 S. W. Rep. 529; Hand v.
Swann, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 241 ; York
V. Conde, 66 Hun, 316; Olson v.
Peterson, 33 Neb. 358 ; Smith v. Whit-
tier, 95 Cal. 279 ; West v. Smith, 101
U. S. 263 ; Perkins v. Concord Road,
44 N. H. 233 ; Daniels v. Woousocket,
1 1 R. I. 4 ; Gay v. Bates, 99 Mass. 263 ;
Strong V. Stewart, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.)
137 ; Duff V. DuEf, 71 Cal. 518 ; Jack-
son V. Clopton, 66 Ala. 29 ; Gommer-
sol V. Crew, 10 N. Y. S. 281 ; Daily v.
Coons, 64 Ind. 545; Mundhenk v.
Central Iowa R. Co., 57 Iowa, 718;
Campau V. Dubois, 39 Mich. 274 ; State
Bank v. Dutton, 11 Wis. 271 ; Patrick
V. Crowe, 15 Colo. 543; Keaton v.
Mayo, 71 Ga. 649 ; Barker v. Bushnell,
75 111. 320. As to power of attorney
to compromise, see § 74. Contra, Mc-
Elwee V. Trowbridge, 68 Hun, 28.
Whether a payment of a claim is an
admission of its justice or a mere
purchase of peace is a question of
fact to be determined by the court.
Colburn v. Groton (N. H., 1894), 38
Atl. Rep. 95.
^Davey v. Lohrman, 14 N. Y. S,
933; Davis v. Simmons, 25 Pac. Rep.
535 ; Eldridge v. Hargreaves, 30 Neb-
638 ; 46 N. W. Rep. 933 ; International
Co. V. Ragsdale, 67 Tex. 37 ; Barker
V. Bushnell, 75 III. 220 ; Strong v.
Stuart, 9 Heisk. 137; Williams v.
State, 52 Ala. 411 ; Draper v. Hatfield,
134 Mass. 53 ; Daniels v. Woonsocket,
11 R. I. 4 ; Hood v. Tyner, 3 Ind. App.
51; Cooper v. Jones, 79 Ga. 379;
Manistee Bank v. Sprague, 64 Mich.
59; Louisville, etc. Co. v. Wright, 115
Ind. 378 ; West v. Smith, 101 U. S.
373. An admission of an independ-
ent or collateral fact not involving
the merits of the case will be received
against the party making the offer un-
less the whole offer was expressly with-
out prejudice. Fuller v. Hampton,
5 Conn. 416; Akers v. Kirk (Ga.,
1894), 18 S. E. Rep. 366; Blayor v.
Howard, 6 Ga. 313; Doon v. Ravey,
49 Vt 298; Cates v. Kellogg, 9 Ind.
506 ; Arthur v. James, 38 Pa. St 236 ;
Church V. State, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.)
328 ; Central Branch U. P. R. Co. v.
Butman, 23 Kan. 446; Plumer v.
Currier, 53 N. H. 287 ; Cole v. Cole,
33 Me. 543 ; Garner v. My rick, 30 Miss.
448; West v. Smith, 101 U. S. 273;
Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore W. Co.,
98 id. 548.
3 White V. Old Dom. S. Co., 103
N. Y. 063; Brice v. Bauer, 108 id.
§ 76.] ADMISSIONS. 107
While confessions in criminal cases must be entirely free
and involuntary,' admissions are not rejected because made
under compulsion or constraint. But the influence must be
legal, and any compulsion amounting to duress or undue in-
fluence either in law or equity would render an admission so
obtained inadmissible. The fact that it was elicited on cross-
examination in reply to questions which the witness answered
voluntarily, but which he might have refused to answer, will
not render it inadmissible.^
§ 76. Admissions in pleadings.— In considering how far a
party is bound by statements or admissions made in plead-
ings, the fairest and most satisfactory criterion is the amount
of his actual knowledge of the contents of those documents.
If it appears jprima facie that the pleadings were signed and
filed by the attorney (particularly when they are formal only),
and there is nothing to show that the client had personal
knowledge of their contents, generally he will not be bound.''
This rule, while sustained by the weight of the decisions and
by reason and good sense, is not universal. The contrary
presumption, that a pleading, even though formal and signed
433 ; Home Ina. Co. v. Bait. Ware- 171 ; Newliall v. Jenkins, 3 Gray, 563 :
house Co., 93 U. S. 548 ; Campau v. Tilley v. Damon, 11 Cash. (Mass.)
Dubois, 39 Mich. 374; West V. Smith, 247..
101 U. S. 368. Contra, Kahn v. Insur- 3 Eaton v. Telegraph Co., 68 Me.
anoe Co. (Wyo., 1894), 34 Pac. Eep. 63; Callan v. MoDaniel, 73 Ala. 96;
1059 ; Ashlock v. Linder, 50 111. 159 ; Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C. 83 ; Smith
1 Greenl. Bvid., § 193. But evidence v. Davidson, 41 Fed. Rep. 173 ; State
is admissible to show the fact of a v. Samuels, 28 Mo. App. 649 ; Wat-
compromise having been made or son v. Lemon, 9 Colo. 200 ; Board of
attempted vifhere the question is not Com'rs v. Diebold S. & L. Co., 133
upon the merits, but whether a com- U.S. 473; Dennie v. Williams, 135
promise was attempted or effected. Mass. 38; Meade v. Black, 33 Wis.
Jones V. Foxall, 15 Beav. 338; Coi- 233; Ferris v. Hard, 135 N. Y. 354;
lier V. Mokes, 3 C. & K. 1012 ; Whit- Delaware County v. Diebold Safe
ney Wagon Works v. Moore (Vt., Co., 133 U. S. 487; Pope v. All is, 115
1890), 17 Atl. Rep. 1007. The reply U. S 363 ; Scholl v. Bradstreet (Iowa,
to a letter offering to compronaise is 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 500 ;' Kentucky
not receivable as an admission, v. I. Cent. Co. (Ind., 1893), 30 N. E.
though it may not have been marked Rep. 802 ; Hamilton v. Patrick, 63
without prejudice if the letter was Hun, 74; Grimmer v. Carlton, 93
so marked. Hoghten v. Hoghten, 15 Cal. 189 ; Hall v. Brennan, 19 N. Y. S.
Beav. 321. 633 ; Halpin v. Manny, 33 Mo. App.
1 See post, % 89. 388.
■^ CoUett V. Keith, 4 Esp. 313; 4 id.
108 ADMISSIONS. ~ [§ 76,
by the attorney, and containing no specific allegation of fact,
was within the knowledge of the party and may be used as
his admission, is supported by many cases.'
Where a party has sworn to his pleadings,^ or if they were
drawn by his express directions, or where the}'- contain matter
not merely formal but specifically and particularly descriptive
of facts which must have been within the personal knowledge
of the party, and which could not have been inserted by the
attorney acting only under general instructions, he will be
conclusively presumed to have been fully informed as to all
statements contained therein, and they will be competent as
his admissions.'
As regards the admissibility of admissions contained in the
pleadings in the suit in which tjiey are filed, it is a general
rule, confirmed by statute in some states, that the pleadings
are not evidence nor open to comment or criticism by counsel.
The pleadings are considered in the light of technical formulas,
not importing absolute veracity in their contents, but are meant
to define the issue and facilitate the labors of the jurors in ar-
riving at a conclusion.''
1 Smith V. Pelott, 68 Hun, 632; Foundry, supra; Cook v. Barr, 44
Coward v. Clanton, 79 Gal. 39 ; Vogel N. Y. 156 ; Asbach v. Railroad Co.
V. Osborne, 33 Minn. 167; Rich v. (Iowa, 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 90.
Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 84; Lamar 3 gpencer v. Fortesque, 16 S. E.
V. Pearce, 17 S. E. Rep. 93 ; Soaps v. Rep. 898 ; Nichols v. Jones, 33 Mo.
Eichberg, 43 111. App. 375 ; Ballock App. 664 ; Central R. R Co. v. Stol-
V. Hooper, 146 U. S. 363 ; Crump v. mer, 51 Fed. Rep. 518 ; Johnson v.
Gerick, 40 Miss. 765; Buzard v. Russell, 144 Mass. 409; Eaton v.
McAnulty, 77 Tex. 438; Kankakee, Telegraph Co., 68 Me. 63; Judd t.
, etc. Co. V. Horan (111., 1890), 33 N. E. Gibbs, 3 Gray (Mass.), 539 ; Lillis v.
Rep. 631; Baily v. O'Bannon, 38 Erin Ditch Co., 95 Cal. 553; State
Mo. App. 39 ; Beale v. Brown, G ' v. Littlefield, 3 R, I. 134 ; Buzard v.
Mackey, 574; Wheeler v. West, 71 McAnulty, 77 Tex. 445; Woods v.
Cal. 136; Murphy v. St Louis Type Graves, 144 Mass. 365; Miller v. James
Foundry, 39 Mo. App. 541 ; McCor- (Iowa, 1898), 53 N. W. Rep. 337.
mick M. Co. v. Snell, 33 III. App. 79. ^gee Gould, Plead., pp. 4-10; Phil-
An original pleading which has been lips v. Smith, 110 Mass. 61; Taft v.
superseded by an amended one is Fiske, 140 Mass. 350. Where the ad-
not admissible as an admission, mission is contained in one clause of
Wheeler v. West, 71 Cal. 136. Con- a pleading, the party has a right to
tra, Baily v. O'Bannon, 38 Mo. App. claim that a clause qualifying it shall
39. be read. Spencer v. Fortescue (N. C,
^National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 143 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 898. Of. Parker
U. S. 38 ; Murphy v. St. Louis Type v. Lanier, 83 Ga. 316.
§ 77.] ADMISSIONS. 109
The answer of an administrator to interrogatories in a bill
an equity will not bind the estate; ' nor is the answer of a de-
fendant in a court of equity generally admissible against his
■co-defendants/ though where there is a real and joint interest
between the parties, or where an actual privity of interest
exists, the answer of one defendant, relating to the common
undertaking, as in cases of partnership^ is an admission by
which the others will be bound.'
Declarations in an answer filed in a court of chancery are
admissible against a sole defendant, even though the answer
is withdrawn or abandoned by him,* or stricken out on mo-
tion.'
§ 77. Admissions l»y reference — Awards of arbitrators.
Where a party has referred another to a third person not in-
terested or in privity with either, the party referring will be
bound by any statements the referee shall make pertaining to
the subject-matter. The statement of the referee is con-
sidered the admission of the person referring." The state-
ments and replies will only be regarded as the admissions of
the party so far as they convey information relative to the
facts which constitute the subject of the inquiry.'
This principle is applicable to awards. If a controvers3r is
submitted to arbitrators chosen "for the purpose of bringing
iCrandall V. Gallup, 12 Coun. 565; dyk, 9 Cranch, 153, 156; Hartley v.
Dent V. Dent, 3 Gill (Md.), 483; El- Mathews (Ala., 1890\ 11 S. Eep. 452.
wood V. Diefendorf, 5 Barb. (K Y.) * Brown v. Pickard, 4 Utah, 293 ;
398 ; Marshall v. Adams, 11 111. 37. Daub v. Engelback, 109 111. 367.
A demurrer to a bill in equity,. in sPeckham Iron Co. v. Harper, 41
order to be used as an admission of Ohio St. 100 : Fite v. Black (Ga., 1893),
the facts stated in the bill, must have 17 S. E. Eep. 349.
been adjudged insufficient. Kanka- « Chapman v. Twitchell, 87 Me. 59.
kee, etc. Co. v. Horan, 131 111. 288 ; 23 The word " referee," as thus used,
N. E. Rep. 631. Cf. post, § 303. means a person to whom a voluntary
'^ Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Wheat, reference is made and not one ap-
380 ; Field v. Holland, 6 Cranch, 8 ; pointed by the court as a substitute
Morris v. Nixon, 1 How. (S. C.) 118; for a jury.
MoElroy v. Ludlum, 33 N. J. Eq. 245. ' Barnard v. Macy, 11 Ind. 536 ;
In equity, if the complainant waives Duval v. Covenhoven, 4 Wend. (N. Y.)
the re^ondent's oath, a sworn an- 561; Lambert v. People, 6 Abb. N. C.
swer has only the force of an affida- (N. Y.) 181 ; Allen v. Killinger, 8
vit United States v. Council, 54 Fed. Wall. (U. S.) 480 ; Over v. Schilling,
Eep. 994. See posf, § 303. 102 Ind. 191 (master referring to
3 See ante, g 66 ; Field v. Holland, servant).
6 Cranch, 8 ; Clark's Exts v. Riems-
110
ADMISSIONS.
[§77.
about a fair settlement and to avoid future litigation, the re-
sult of the arbitration will be conclusive and will be regarded
as the admissions of the parties referring,- unless corruption or
partiality or gross fraud, collusion or mistake is shown.'
An arbitrator or referee may testify to what matters were
referred to him.^ But where the award is in writing it is
considered as the wri1J;en admission of both parties, and neither
will be allowed to contradict or vary its terms by the parol
evidence of the arbitrator.' On the other hand, an award
may be set aside if 'prima facie irregular, uncertain or lacking
in mutuality,* or if it appears upon its face to have been
rendered upon ex parte, improper or grossly insufficient evi-
dence.' Grenerally, however, an arbitrator to whom the par-
ties have voluntarily referred a controversy is not bound by
strict legal rules as to the reception of evidence. He may, in his
discretion, receive evidence which would be inadmissible in a
court, provided he keeps within the limits of the subject-
matter referred, and the reception by him of such evidence is
I Wade V. Powell, 31 Ga. 1; N. Y.
Lumber, etc. Co. v. Schneider, 119
N. Y. 475 ; Davy v. Faw, 7 Cranch
(U. S.), 171 ; Overly v. Thrasher, 47
id. 10 ; Sherfey v. Graham, 72 III. 158
Colder v. Mueller, 33 111. App. 537
Kendrick v. Turbell, 26 Vt 416
Harris v. So. Mfg. Co., 8 R. I. 133 ;
Carter v. Carter, 100 Mass. 809 ; State
V. Appleby, 25 S. C. 500 ; McDowell
V. Thomas, 4 Neb. 542; Cooper v.
Andrews, 44 Mich. 94; Pierce v.
Pierce, 60 N. H. 355 ; Sisson v. Balti-
more, 51 Md. 83 ; Jenkins v. Meagher,
46 Miss. 84 ; Crumlish v. Wilmington,
5 Del. Ch. 270 ; Cushing v. Babcock,
38 Me. 452 ; Halstead v. Seaman, 53
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 415; Bennett v.
Russell, 34 Mo. 534 ; Young v. Laird,
30 Ala 371.
2Hawksworth v. Brammel, 5 M.
6 Cr. 281; Hale v. Huse, 10 Gray
(Mass.), 99; Thrasher v. Overly, 51
Ga.91.
3 Cobb V. Dortch, 53 Ga. 548 ; Aid-
rich V. Jessiman, 8 N, H. 516 ; Alex-
ander V. McNear, 38 Fed. Rep. 403 ;
Mulligan v. Perry, 64 Ga. 567 ; Kings-
ton V. Kincaid, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 448;
Ward V. Gould, 5 Pick. 29; Chap-
man V. Ewing, 78 Ala. 403. See post,
§ 205 et seq.
*Blackledge v. Simpsons 3 Hayw.
(S. C.) 30; Purdy v. Delavan, 1
Caines, 304; Weed v. Ellis, 3 id. 254;
Spofford V. Spofford, 10 N. H. 254;
Gilson V. Powell, 13 Miss. 712; Han-
son V. Weber, 40 Me. 194.
5 Conrad v. Mass. I. Co., 4 Allen
(Mass.), 20 ; Hogaboom v. Herrick, 4
Vt 131 ; Fluharty v. Beatty, 22 W.
Va. 698 ; Thompson v. Blanchard, 2
Iowa, 44; Cutting v. Carter, 29 Vt
73. The party impeaching an award
upon the grounds that evidence had
been improperly excluded must
have objected at the time of its ex-
clusion (Patten v. Hunnewell, 8 Me,
19), and must show that the evidence
would have been percinent and ma-
terial. Halsted v. Seaman, 53 How,
Pr. (N. Y.) 415.
§§ 78, 79.] ADMISSIONS. Ill
in good faith and does not result in any substantial injustice
to either of the parties.'
^nder the rule above explained, that where a party has re-
ferred another to a third person, the latter has power to bind
the party referring by his statements relating to the subject-
matter, is included the case of an interpreter who participates
in all interview between the parties. Either party may tes-
tify to the statements of the interpreter, which is under such
circumstances equivalent to the admission of the adversary.^
§ 78. Admissions from conduct and assumed character. —
This class of admissions is of extensive application, but in the
main as admissions by conduct are rather to be regarded as
forming a part of the law of equitable estoppel, the principles
upon which they are admitted as a part of the law of evidence
is of doubtful correctness. They will be found elsewhere
treated under their appropriate head.'
§ 79. Self-serving declarations.— The admissions of a
party, being presumably against his interest, may be given in
evidence by any one who heard them. But a party cannot
claim the same for statements made by him in his own favor.
Such declarations cannot be testified to by third persons as
substantive evidence of the facts therein stated, and if they
are to be produced in evidence the party himself must go
upon the stand.' If the declaration is made in the presence
1 Hooper v. Taylor, 39 Me. 224; 451; Ward v. Ward, 37 Mich. 253;
Fennimore v. Childs, 1 Halst. (N. J.) In re Bronson, 67 Hud, 237; Bement
886 ; Maynard v. Frederick, 7 Cush. v. May (Ind., 1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 327 ;
246; Shaifer v. Baker, 38 Ga. 135; Hammond v. Beeson, 112 Mo. 190;
Bassett v. Cunningham, 9 Gratt. (Va.) Smith v. Wilson, 1 Tex. Civ. App.
684; Campbell v. Western, 3 Paige 115; Schmidt v. Packard, 132 Ind.
(N. Y.), 124; Pike v. Gage, 9 Fost 398; Alexeftider v. Hundley, 11 S.
(N. H.) 461; Chesley v. Chesley, 10 Rep. 390; Shiner v. Abbie, 77 Tex.
N. H. 827 ; McCrae v. Robeson, 2 1 ; Melcher v. Derkum, 44 Mo. App.
Murph. (N. C.) 127. But evidence as 650 ; Steel v. Shafer, 89 111. App. 185 ;
to a claim which is not legally en- Thomas, Adm'r, v. Lewis (Va., 1893),
foroeable should be rejected by the 15 S. E. Rep. 889 ; Saenger v. Night-
arbitrator. De La Riva v. Berreysea, ingale, 48 Fed. Eep. 708 ; Cherry v.
2 Gal. 195. Butler, 17 S. W. Rep. 1090 ; Tisch v.
2 Nadau v. White River Lumber Co. TJtz, 142 Pa. St 186 ; Schwab v. Heiu-
(Wis., 1890), 43 N. W. Rep. 1035. del, 16 Daly, 164; Welch v. Palmer,
3 See post, §§ 83, 84. 85 Mich. 310 ; Baily v. Pardridge, 134
< Whitney v. Houghton, 135 Mass. IlL 188.
112 ADMISSIONS. [§ 79.
and hearing ' of the other party or of his agent, in a way
and under such circumstances that required him to repl}'', deny
or qualify the truth of the facts asserted, it is no longer inad-
missible as self-serving and hearsay, but as adopted and rati-
fied by the party hearing it, and is receivable as his admission.^
The statement must not only have been made in the presence
of the party, but the language used must have been fully un-
derstood before his silence can be construed into an admission.^
Thus, if he is a foreigner not thoroughly conversant with the
language, it must be shown that an interpreter was present
and that the meaning of the words used was explained to
him.'' The circumstances of the conversation should have
been such as would naturally demand a denial or reply,' for
no man is called upon to enter into useless discussion or to
meet every vague, hasty or extravagant assertion concerning
his rights that is made in his hearing," whether it be addressed
to him or to third persons. So no man is under any sort of
necessity or obligation to answer questions put to him with-
out knowing their" purpose and object; and where questions
seriously affecting one's own interest are put by an adversary,
the right of the questioner to the knowledge must be shown
before silence or an express refusal to answer should be con-
strued into a damaging admission.'
1 In all cases of this class the pres- W. Rep. 373 ; Hunt v. Johnson, 11 S.
ence of the person to be affected is a Rep. 387. If a party's declarations
very material element. Martin v. are admitted in his own favor, they
Capital Ins. Co. (Iowa, 1893), 53 N. should be confined to corroboration
W. Rep. 534 ; Gainsey v. Rhodes, 63 alone. Sprague v. Bond (N. C, 1894),
Hun, 633 ; Dawson v. Schloss, 93 Cal. 18 S. E. Rep. 701.
134; Taliaferro v. Goudelock,-83 Tex. 3 Riley v, Martinelli (Cal., 1893), 33
531 ; Simonds v. Partridge, 154 Mass. Pac. Rep. 579.
500 ; Sanscraints v. Torongo, 87 Miob. * Wright v. Maseras, 56 Barb. 521.
69 ; Downing v. Iron Co., 93 Ala. » Giles v. Vandiver, 17 S. E. Rep.
363; Cain v. Cain, 140 Pa. St. 144; 115.
Farrell v. Weitz (Mass., 1894), 35 N. « Whitney v. Houghton, 137 Mass.
E. Rep. 783. 537; Siva v. Wabash Ry. Co. (Mo.,
, 2Des Moines Sav. Bank' v. Hotel 1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 915.
Co. (Iowa, 1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 67; 'Des Moines Bank v. Hotel Co.
Evans v. Montgomery (Mick, 1893), (Iowa, 1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 67; Brain-
55 id. 363 ; Giles v. Vandiver, 17 S. ard v. Buck, 35 Vt. 573 ; Corser v.
E. Rep. 115; Claflin v. Rodenburg Paul, 41 N. H. 34; Blanchard v.
(Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep..373; Thomp- Evans, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct 543;
son V. Thompson (Ky., 1893), 30 S. Pierce v. Goldsburg, 3S Ind. 817;
§ 79.] ADMISSIONS. 113
So admissions which are inferred from silence should be
and are received with caution, the very liberal policy as to
their reception which obtained in the earlier cases being no
longer countenanced. Subject to this precaution and having
in view the facility with which evil-disposed persons may
abuse the principle here involved by the employment of de-
nunciation or offensive or scurrilous language or impertinent
questions towards their adversary and in his hearing, admis-
sions implied by silence are I'eceivable against the party.
So where a tenant receives notice to quit' without objec-
tion, or where an account is rendered to the debtor and not
promptly objected to by him,^ the silence of the parties will
be received as an admission of the corractness of the notice
or account.
So where books or documents are proved to have been in
the possession of a person, or where it is known that he had
or could have had constant access to them either personally
or by his agent, it will be presumed that he inspected them
and has acquired a knowledge of their contents. Under such
circumstances his silence or failure to object promptly to the
accuracy of the entries, so far as they affect his interest and so
far as the circumstances call for an objection on his part, will
make the statements of fact contained in the writings com-
petent as his admissions.'
People V. DFiscoU, 107 N. Y. 424; v. Sawyer, 15 S. W. Rep. 998; 1041
Wilkins v. Stidger, 23 Cal. 231 ; Duiy Mo. 36.
V. Hervey, 126 Mass. 517; Vail v. SKirwan v. Henry (Kj'., 1890), 16-
Strong, 10 Vt. 457 ■ Higgins v. Del- S. W. Rep. 838 ; Fenuo v. Weston, 31.
linger, 23 Mo. 397; Hacbett v. Col- Vt. 345; Coe v. Hutton, 1 S. & R.
lender, 33 Vt. 97; MoClenkan v. 398; Corps v. Robinson, 2 Wash.
McMillan, 6 Barr, 366; Com. v. Call, C. C. 388; McBride v. Watts, 1 Mc-
31 Pick. 515; Com. v. Kenney, 13 Cord, 384; Allen v. Coit, 6 Hill
Mete. 335 ; Hildreth v. Martin, 3 (N. Y.), 318. See 1 Greenl. on Evid.,
Allen (Mass.), 371 ; Com. v. Densmore, g 197. But statements in unanswered
12 id. 535; 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 197: letters in the parties' possession,
' Cons. Coal Co. v. Schaefer, 31 111. where no reply was reasonably re-
App. 364. quired by circumstances, cannot be
2 Freeland v. Herron, 7 Crancli, 147, received against the person ad-
151; House V. Beak, 43 111. App. 615: dressed. Waring v. 0. S. Tel. Co.,
141 111.290; Mackin v. O'Brien, 33 44 How. (N. Y.) 69; 4 Daly, 333;
id. 474 ; Fleishner v. Kubli, 20 Oreg. Com. v. Eastman, 1 Cusb. (Mass.) 189 ;
333; 25 Pac. Rep. 1086; McCormack Richardson v. Frankum, 9 C. & P.
8
114 , ADMISSIONS. [§ 80.
§ 80. Mode of proof — Nature of the admission. — Admis-
sions by third persons in privity with the party against whom
they are offered may be shown by the testimony of any com-
petent witness who was present and has heard them.' The
main fact is rather the actual making of the declaration than
its truth or falsity, so that evidence is always receivable on
the part of the persons against whom the admission is intro-
duced to show either that he did not make it, or, if it was made
by third persons, that the statements of fact contained in it
are not true.^ It is sufficient if the substance of the admission
be stated,' though in any case the whole of the declaration
relating to the same subject must be introduced in order that
its credibility may be determined by the jury after a careful
comparison and weighing of those parts which are favorable
with those that are adverse to the party.*
In case letters forming a correspondence are introduced by
the plaintiff, the defendant may read his own answer to plaint-
iff's last letter.'
The credibility or weight of the admissions is always a
question for the jury. All parts of the declaration may
291 ; Talcotfc v. Harris, 93 N. Y. 567, Murphy, 39 Cal. 53 ; Morris v. Stokes,
571 ; Leonard v. Tillotsoo, 97 N. Y. 24 Ga. 553 ; Moore v. Wright, 90 III.
8, cited in 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 197. 470 ; Withers v. Richardson, 5 T. B.
1 Miller v. Wood, 44 Vt. 378; Wil- Mon. (Ky.) 94; Turner v. Jenkins, 1
cox V. Green, 28 Conn. 573; Shepp v. H. & J. (Md.) 161 ; Storer v. Gowen,
State, 31 Tex. Grim. Rep. 349; Green 18 Me. 174; Witwell v. Wyer, 11
V. Cawthorn, 4 Dev. L. (N. C.) 409 ; Mass. 6 ; Perego v. Purdy, 1 Hilton,
Com. V. Griffin, 110 Mass. 181; Ober- 269; Bristol v. Warner, 19 Conn. 7;
mann Brew. Co. v. Adams, 35 111. Simmons v. Haas, 56 Md. 153; Searles
App. 540; Seers v. So. R Co. (Mo., v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 316; Adams
1891), 18 S. W. Rep. 1007. He should v. Eames, 107 Mass. 275; Kelsey v.
be required to identify the person Busch, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 440 ; Devylyn
making the admissions or declara- v. Killcrease, 3 McMull. (S. C.) 425. A
tions where their admisibility de- copy of a written statement made to
pends on their being made by a par- a witness by a party is primary evi-
ticular person. Smith v. Williams, dence of the admissions therein if its
15 S. E. Rep. 130. correctness is verified by the witness
2 0'Bannoii V. Vigus, 33 III. App. who made it Butler v. Cornell (III.,
'i'''3- 1894), 35 N. E. Rep. 767.
SKittridge v. Russell, 114 Mass. 67. sRoe v. Daj-, 7 C. & P. 705. So
* See, also, " Confessions," §g 93, 94 ; where a letter which is alleged to be
Wilson V. Calvert, 8 Ala. 757 ; Tram- in answer to another letter is offered,
mel V. Bassett, 24 Ark. 499 ; Barnum the latter must also be produced.
v. Barnum, 9 Conn. 242; People v. Watson v. Moore, 1 C. & Kir. 626.
§ 80.] ADMISSIONS. 115
not be equally credible, and they may refuse to believe any
part of it and may reject the part unfavorable to the party
against whom it is ofiPered and believe that which is in his
favor.' Statements wholly distinct from the admission need
not be shown ; ^ nor need the witness in testifying to the ad-
mission be asked concerning contradictory statements which
have been made later."
"Where the witness was present during only part of the con-
versation in which the admission was made, he may testify to
that part which he has heard,* and other parts of that con-
versation relating to and qualifying it may be shown by the
adverse party ; as, by putting an admission in evidence, all that
was said at the time necessary to comprehend it is rendered
admissible.'
Although all admissions are hearsay so far as the witness
himself is concerned, a distinction is made in their character
as viewed from the standpoint of the party who uttered them
and who might, if on the witness stand, be able to testify to
their contents of his own personal knowledge. If the admis-
sion assumes to be a statement of some fact, the whole of it
will be binding upon the party in the same manner as though
it were an actual statement of fact, though it appears that a
portion of it is not in the personal knowledge of the person
making it, and is derived from the information of others.
Eut where the statement is expressly made on information
1 Ayers v. Metcalfe, 39 III. 307 ; Li- 11 ; Edward v. Ford, 2 Bailey (S. C),
cett V. State, 23 Ga. 57 ; Pearson v. 461 ; Hatch v. Potter, 2 Gilm. (Ill)
Sabin, 10 N. H. 205 ; Newcomb v. 725. See post, § 342a.
Jones, 37 Mo. App. 475 ; Mattocks v. < Williams v. Kaiser, 11 Fla. 234
Lyman, 18 Vt 98 ; Roberts v. Mc- State v. Pratt, 88 N. C. 639 ; Denver
Gee, 15 Barb. 449 ; Brown's Case, 9 etc. Co. v. Neis, 56 ,Cal. 56 ; Mays v.
Leigh, 633; Yarborough v. Moss, 9 Deaver, 1 Iowa, 260; State v. Gov-
Ala. 382 ; Whitwell V. Wyer, 11 Mass. ington, 2 Bailey (S. C), 569; West
6, 10. ■ moreland v. State, 45 Ga. 225. Ad-
^Barbyv. Ouseley, 1 H. & N. 1 ; missions which are competent are
Sturge V. Buchanan, 2 M. & R. 90. not rendered inadmissible because
Cf. Lamar v. Pearce (Ga., 1893), 17 the party contradicts them. Griffith
S. E. Rep. 92. But an admission can- v. Sauls (Tex., 1890), 14' & W. Rep.
not prevail over an agreed statement 230.
of facts. Adams v. Eiohenberger 6 Moore v. Wright, 90 111. 470;
(Ark., 1893), 18 S. W. Rep. 853. Gildersleeve v. Mahoney, 5 Duer, 383 ;
3 People V. Green, 1 Park. Cr. Cas. Pennell v. Meyer, 8 C. & P. 470.
116 ADMISSIONS. [§§ 81, 82.
and belief, it will be inadmissible either against the party or
in his favor.'
Yerbal admissions are not generally admissible to prove
those facts which, under the circumstances or by some rule of
law, can only be properly proved by written evidence,^ unless
the loss of the writing be shown or its absence be accounted
for.'
§ 81. Weight and sufficiency of admissions. — The some-
what unreliable character of verbal admissions, made often
hastily and inadvertently or in casual conversation, has been
often adverted to.* The language used may have been mis-
understood, or not understood at all by the witness, or ic may
be perverted by him who testifies through passion or preju-
dice or because unable to recollect the language used. For
several eye-witnesses to give different accounts of the same
occurrence which they saw is very common. "Where language
is to be repeated, only those who are skilled in detecting the
niceties of meaning which attach to many words and phrases
will be able to narrate correctly even the substance of what
they have heard. So the witness may allow knowledge of
facts which he has subsequently ascertained to color and dis-
tort the meaning of the language which was employed and
which he heard. Upon the whole, the unsubstantial char-
acter of this sort of evidence is such that it is only receivable
from the necessity of the case and in the absence of evidence
of a more reliable character.
§82. Admissions, wlien conclusive — Mistake.— Judicial
admissions in the form of express stipulations by the party or
his attorney, which, on being filed, become a part of the rec-
1 Roe V. Ferrais, 3 B. & P. 548 (ap- land Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend,
plying the rule to an answer in ohan- 480; MoPhaul v. Gilchrist, 7 Ired.
eery); Chaddook v. Clifton, 22 Wis. (N. C.) L. 169; Scott v. Clare, 3
115; Stephens v. Vroman, 16 N. Y. Campta. 236; Sykes v. Hayes, 5 Biss.
301. Cf. Chapman v.. Chicago, etc. 539 ; Newhall v. Holt, 6 M. & W. 663.
Co., 26 Wis. 295. See as to personal But cf. Jackson v. Dobbin, 3 Johns,
knowledge, § 50. 333 ; Earle v. Pioken, 5 C. & P. 543.
2 Walker v. Dunspaugh, 20 N. Y. See ante, §§ 30-38, 37,
170; Jenaer v. Jolliflfe, 6 Johns. 9; 3 See post, §§ 130, 133.
Jackson v. Miller, 6 Cow. 751,755; i Richmond, etc. Co. v. Kerler, 88
Jackson v. Caiy, 16 Jolma. 300 j Wei- Ga. 39.
§S2.]
ADMISSIONS.
117
ords of the court, or payment of money into court, are con-
clusive of all the facts either directly or incidentally involved.'
Thus, by payment into court, the party admits the amount of
the indebtedness,^ that it is due,' as well as the jurisdiction of the
court,^ and the capacity * of his adversary to sue. So the suf-
ficiency of the pleading is also admitted.' So, also, express
admissions of facts contained in a party's pleadings are usually
conclusive upon him, constituting as they do a legal estoppel
of record.'
While judicial admissions becoming a part of the record are
regarded as conclusive, admissions out of court are not gener-
ally so regarded as to the facts contained therein, unless by
means of the admission the conduct of some other person has
been so influenced that he has altered his condition to such
an extent that he will be damaged by allowing their falsity to
be shown.' The admission may then be regarded as working
an estoppel upon the party making it.' But estoppels differ
> See ante, %% 74-76.
2 Boyden v. Moore, 5 Mass. 365, 369.
3 Jones V. Hoar, 5 Pick. 385 ; Cons.
Gas Co. V. Harless (Ind, 1891), 29 N.
E. Rep. 1003.
4 Miller v. Williams, 5 Esp. 19, 31.
s Lipscombe v. Holmes, 3 Campb.
441.
6 Randall v. Lynch, 3 Camp. 853,
357. See, also, Baker v. Charlton, 7
Cush. 581.
'Bowers v. Smith, 8 N. Y. S. 226;
Simis V. Davidson, 54 N. Y. Super.
Ct. 235; Sheehan v. Loler, 36 Mo.
' App. 224.
8 Bank v. Natchez, 3 Rob. (La.) 293 ;
Newton v. Belcher, 13 Q. B. 931;
Reed v. Newcomb (Vt., 1890), 19 Atl.
Rep. 367 : Kinney v. Farnsworth, 17
Conn. 355 ; O'Bannon v. Vigus, 33 111.
App. 473 ; Newcomb v. Jones, 37 Mo.
App. 475; LouisviUe, E. & St L. Co.
v. Berry (Ind., 1894), 35 ,N. E. Rep.
565. An admission of payment of
consideration in a deed is not con-
,clusive. See §208. So an admission
contained in an alleged agreement is
not binding as an estoppel. Josey v.
Davis, 55 Ark. 318.
9 " To constitute such an estoppel a
party must have designedly made an
admission inconsistent with the de-
fense or claim he proposes to set up,
and another party have with his
knowledge and consent so acted on
that admission that he will be injured
by allowing that admission to be dis-
proved." Cooley, J., in Hawes v.
Marchant, 1 Curt. C. C. 144. So in
Heane v. Rogers, 9 B. & C. 577, 586,
the court said : " There is no doubt
but that the express admissions of a
party to the suit or admissions im-
plied from his conduct are evidence
and strong evidence against him :
but we think that he is at liberty to
prove that such admissions were
mistaken, or were untrue, and is not
estopped or concluded by them, un-
less another person has been induced
by them to alter his condition; in
such a case a party is estopped from
disputing their truth with respect to
that person (and those claiming under
118
ADMISSIONS.
[§83.
from admissions in that the former, being a legal defense,
must be specially pleaded, the facts which are to support them
being given in evidence; though they, resemble admissions in
that they are binding only upon privies or upon parties among
or between whom a joint interest or privity exists.*
An admission is always matter of evidence alone, and the
facts admitted need not be pleaded, but are for the considera-
tion of the jury. So, except perhaps in the case of judicial
admissions or extra-judicial admissions under oath or in which
gross fraud or crime is involved, the party may be allowed to
rebut the truth of the statement or show that it was made
under duress, or ignorantly or by mistake, or while intoxicated,
in all cases where, not having been acted upon, the other party
will not be prejudiced.^
§ 83. Estoppel defined. — Estoppels are divided into estop-
pels by deed — that is, by some admission or agreement con-
tained in a valid sealed instrument ; by record, which shows
bim) and that transaction, but as to
third persons he is not bound."
1 Parker v. Crittenden, 37 Conn.
148; Gould v. "West, 33 Tex. 338;
Eaton V. N. E. Tel. Co., 68 Me. 63 ;
Wright V. Hazen, 24 Vt. 143 ; Thistle
V. Buford, 50 Mo. 278; McCrawey v.
Remsen, 19 Ala. 430 ; Peters v. Jones,
85 Iowa, 412 ; Kinnear v. Mackey, 85
111. 96 ; Simpson v. Pearson, 31 Ind.
1 ; Murray v. Sells, 53 Ga. 257. That
estoppels must be specially pleaded,
see Tyler v. Hall, 106 Mo. 313 ; Good-
ing V. Underwood, 89 Mich. 187;
Wessels v. Bleaman, 87 Mich. 481;
Vellum V. Demerle, 65 Hun, 543;
Churchill v. Bowman, 95 Cal. 54.
2 Kenton v. Firet Nat. Bank (Ky.,
1893), 19 S. W. Rep. 841; Miller
Hardw. Lumb. Co. v. Wilson (Ark.,
1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 974; Tower v.
Haslam, 84 Me. 84 ; Gooding v. Un-
derwood, 89 Mich. 187 ; Wortham v.
Thompson, 81 Tex. 348; Wright v.
Weimeister, 87 Mich. 494; Stiff v.
Ashton (Mass., 1893), 29 N. E. Rep.
303; Hill v. Wand, 47 Kan. 340;
Thompson v. Thompson (Ky., 1893),
80 S. W. Rep. 873 ; Hoi man v. Boyce
(Vt, 1893), 26 Atl. Rep. 832 ; Watkins
et al. T. Howeth, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 277 ;
Board v. First Nat. Bank, 24 N. Y. S.
392 ; Platto v. Gettelman (Wig., 1893),
55 N. W. Rep. 167 ; Newcomb v. Jones,
37 Mo. App. 475. The principles lying
at the foundation of the doctrine of
estoppel as it is now recognized both
in law and equity are thus admirably
summed up by the court in Dickin-
son V. Colegrove, 100 U. S. 580: "The
vital principle is that he who by his
language or conduct leads another to
do what he would not otherwise have
done shall not subject such person to
loss or injury by disappointing the
expectations upon which he acted.
A change of position would involve
fraud and falsehood. The remedy is
available only for protection and can-
not be used as a weapon of assault
It accomplishes that which ought to
be done between man and man, and
is not permitted to go beyond this
limit"
§ 83.] ADMISSIONS. 119
a final adjudication of a court of competent jurisdiction,' and
estoppels in pais, or, using the modern term, equitable es-
toppels.
Estoppels are defined by Lord Coke as follows : " An es-
toppel is where a man is concluded by his own act or accept-
ance to say the truth."
In the case of most estoppels in law — that is, estoppels b}'
deed or record — the truth is absolutely excluded without dis-
criminating whether, in the particular case, its exclusion will
work an injustice or not. An estoppel in pais or by conduct,
so far at least as it is governed by equitable principles, is only
allowed to exclude the truth when its assertion would be un-
just to the person who has relied upon the statement or con-
duct of the party estopped.
In the case of strictly legal estoppels in pais, such as those,
for example, which arise by an acceptance of rent or estate or
by partition, the truth is excluded partly because of maxims
of public policy and partly to obtain a consistent and unvary-
ing administration of the law.-
In order to constitute a declaration or act an estoppel in
pais there must have been a material misrepresentation of
fact or a concealment of or silence respecting certain facts or
circumstances which it was the duty of the party to make
known.'
1 See " Judgments," post, g§ 151- actions of law. But it does not fol-
156. low because equitable estoppels may
2 Horn V. Cole, 51 N. H. 287. originate legal as distinguished from
'See Tiederaan on Equity. § 107 equitable rights, that it may not be
et seq. ; Eaton v. Te!. Co., 68 Me. 523 ; necessary, in particular oases, to re-
People V. Brown, 67 III. 435 ; Home sort to a court of equity to make
V. Cole, 51 jSr. H. 38^-290; Stevens v. them available. All that can prop-
Dennett, 51 N. H. 324 ; Peters v. erly be said is that to justify a resort
Jones, 35 Iowa, 512; Continental to a court of equity it is necessary to
Banli V. Bank of Commonwealth, 50 show some ground of equity other
N. Y. 575 ; Zeohtmann v. Roberts, 109 than the estoppel itself whereby the
Mass. 53 ; Eeis v. Grafman, 56 Mo. party entitled to the benefit of it is
434 ; Oakland v. Rye, 52 Cal. 370 ; prevented from making it available
Viele V. Judson, 83 N. Y. 33-39 ; in a court of law. In other words,
Hamlin v. Seers, 83 N. Y. 337; Cora- the case shown must be one where
stock V. Smith, 26 Mich. 306 ; Abrams the forms of law are used to defeat
V. Scale, 44 Ala. 297. " The meaning ' that which in equity constitutes the
is not that equitable estoppels are right."' Drexel v, Berney, 123 U. S.
cognisable only in courts of equity, 853.
for they are commonly enforced in
420
ADMISSIONS.
[§83.
If one is not under any obligation to speak, or if he has no
reasonable opportunity to do so, his silence will not constitute
an estoppel.' Thus the circulation of a plat or map upon which
property is described as subdivided in blocks wiU not estop
the owner when it is done without his knowledge.^ On the
other hand, where an owner of lands allows another to make
improvements without warning him of his title,' or allows
another person to deal with his property as his own, he will
be estopped against all persons who, relying upon his silence,
have acquired any title to the property because of a belief in
the validity of the title of the third person."*
The verbal statement of fact, in order to operate as an es-
toppel, must be distinct and clear,' and must, as a general rule,
pertain to some past or present event. In no case will a mere
expression of opinion or of future intention, unless a contract
be created, be binding as an estoppel.*
1 Rosenfield v. Fortier, 94 Mich. 34 ;
Collier v. White (Ala., 1893), 13 S.
Rep. 385 ; Mathews v. Alsworth (La.,
1893), 13 S. Rep. 578;. Dififenbach v.
Vogeler, 61 Md. 870 ; Terre Haute v.
Rodel, 89 Ind. 138 ; Veile v. Judson,
83 N. Y. 33 ; Bull v. Rowe, 13 S. C.
355 ; Bramble v. Kingbury, 39 Ark.
131; Mills V. Railroad Co., iV N. J.
Eq. 1.
>! Sullivan v. Davis, 89 Kan. 38.
3 Ware v. Smith (Mass., 1893), 30 N.
E. Rep. 869 ; Planet, etc. Co. v. Rail-
road Co. (Mo., 1898), 33 S. W. Rep.
616 ; Town v. Peebles, 5 Wash. St.
471 ; Cross v. Kansas City, 90 Mo. 13.
■• Tiederaan on Equity, § 109 ; Du-
pree v. Woodruff (Tex., 1893), 19 S.
W. Rep. 469; Long v. Kee(La., 1893),
10 S. Rep. 854; Foreman v. Weil
(Ala., 1898), 12 S. Rep. 815 ; Stewart
V. Armstrong, 56 Fed. Rep. 167;
Lawrence v. Guaranty Co. (Kan.,
1893), 33Pac. Rep. 816; Mathews v.
Morgan (Iowa, 1893), 55 N. W. Rep.
478; Mathews v. Culbertson (Iowa,
1898), 50 id. 201 ; Chapman v. Pingry,
67 Maine, 198 ; Hawkins v. Church,
33 Minn. 256; Roberts v. Davis, 73
Ga. 819; Redman v. Graham, 80 K
C. 281 ; Stewart v. Munford, 91 111.
158 ; Kirk v. Hamilton, 103 U, S.
5 Graham v. Thompson, 55 Ark,
296; Townsend v. Todd, 47 Conn,
190; Moors v. Albro, 129 Mass. 9
Davenport v. Gas Co., 43 Iowa, 301
Bennett v. Dean, 41 Mich. 473 ; Lash
V. Rendall, 73 Ind. 475; Roach v.
Branuon, 57 Miss. 490; Tiilotson v.
Mitchell, 111 111. 518; Grinman v.
Dean, 63 Tex. 318; Hill v. Wand, 47
Kan. 240; Sparks v. Texas Loan
Agency, 19 S. W. Rep. 356.
6 White v. Ashton, 51 N. Y. 380;
Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64 ; Allen
V. Hodge, 51 Vt 436 ; White v. Water,
31 111. 423-437 ; Whitwell v. Winslow,
134 Mass. 343; Insurance Co. v.
Morey, 96 U. S. 544 ; Birdsey v. But-
terfleld, 34 Wis. 53 ; McGirr v. Sell, 60
Ind. 349; Chatfield v. Simonson, 92
N. Y. 209; Phelps v. Railroad Co.,
94 111. 548 ; Shields v. Smith, 37 Ark.
47. ■' The only case in which a rep-
resentation as to the future can be
held to operate as an estoppel is when
it relates to an intended abandon-
ment of an existing right and is made
§84.J
ADMISSIONS.
121
§ 84. Intention of party estopped. — In order to constitute
an estoppel it is necessary that the misrepresentation should
have been intended to influence the conduct ' of some other
person ; but it is also held that the existence of an actual in-
tention need not be. shown, but that an intention may be im-
plied from circumstances which" would induce others to act.^
On the other hand, the party pleading the estoppel must
have relied upon the misrepresentation or silence of the party
estopped, so that he would sustain a loss were the latter, to be
allowed to disprove the truth of his statement.'
"While a fraudulent intent on the part of the person estopped
is never absolutely required, it has been repeatedly held that
he must l^now what he says to be false or must have no
reasonable grounds for believing his statement to be true.^
On the other hand, the party who claims the benefit of the
estoppel must prove that he was ignorant of the truth of the
statements he relied upon, and that he had no opportunity and
to influence others and by which
they have been induced to act An
estoppel cannot arise from a promise
as to future action with respect to a
right to be acquired upon an agree-
ment not yet made." Union Mut.
Life Ins. Co. v. Mowry, 96 U. S.
547-48.
1 Harvey v. West. 87 Oa. 553;
Bishop V. Minton (N. C, 1893), 17
S. E. Eep. 436 ; McCabe v. Raney, 32
Ind. 309; Clark v. Culidge, 8 Kan.
189-195; Pierce v. Andre ves, 6 Cush.
4; Wilcox V. Howell, 44 N. Y. 398;
Turner v. Coffin, 12 Allen, 401 ; Kuhl
V. Mayer, 23 N. J. Eq. 84, 85; South-
ard v: Sutton, 68 Me. 575 ; Carroll v.
Railroad Co., Ill Mass. 1 ; Brown v.
Bowen, 30 N. Y. 519; Holdane v.
Colespring, 21 N. Y. 474.
2 Parlin v. Stone, 48 Fed. Rep. 608 ;
Mattes V. Frankel, 65 Hun, 203;
Stockton Sav. Bank v. Staples (Cal.,
1893), 32 Pac. Rep. 936; Anderson v.
Armstead, 69 111. 452-454 ; Home v.
Cole, 51 N. H. 287 ; Ries v. Bruce, 49
Mo. 331-334; Bank v. Hazard, 30
N, Y. 226-230 ; Life Ins. Co. v. Norris,
81 N. J. Eq. 583-585.
3Gerlach v. Turner, 89 Cal. 446
Draffiu V. Raih-oad Co., 34 S. C. 464
Stevens v. Ludluni, 46 Minn. 160
Home V. Bank, 108 N. C. 109 ; Hol-
man v. Boyce (Vt, 1893), 26 Atl. Rep.
633; Vaughn v. Hiion, 50 Kan. 773;
Hopkins v. McCriUis (Mass., 1893), 33
N. E. Rep. 1036 ; Curnen v. Mayer, 79
N. Y. 511-514 ; Stevens v. Dennett, 51
N. H. 324-333 ; Eaton v. Tel. Co., 68
Me. 63 ; Graves v. Blaudell, 70 id. 190.
i In re King, 29 W. N. C. 426 ; Bell
V. Goodnature (Minn., 1893), 53 N. W.
Rep. 908 ; Raner v. Timerson, 51 Barb.
517 ; Holmes v. Crowell, 73 N. C. 613 ;
Whitaker v. Williams, 30 Conn. 98 ;
Reed v. McCourt, 41 N. Y. 435 ; Thrall
V. Lathrop, 30 Vt. 307 ; Adams v.
Brown, 16 Ohio St. 419; Smith v.
Hutchinson, 61 Mo. 83 ; Lafferty v.
Moore, 33 N. Y. 658 ; Wharf v. Pres-
cott, 7 Allen, 494 ; Dorlarque v. Cress,
71 111. 380-383; Graves v. Blondell,
70 Me. 90.
122 ADMISSIONS. [§ 85.
was not negligent in inquiring after the knowledge of their
truth."
§ S5. Admissions and communications sent and received
by telephone. — A communication sent or received over a
telephone is a message in its legal meaning and relations/
the idea conveyed by the word " telephone " being nearly
equivalent to that involved in the word " telegram " — i. e.,
information received from a distance. The message thus sent
may constitute an oral admission under circumstances which are
analogous to those rendering admissible a party's declarations
against him. So a conversation had over a telephone with a
person who is shown to have such an instrument in his place
of residence or business is competent as his admission, and it
may be stated by the hearer without the latter identifying
the party at the other end of the wire.' Usually, however, a
witness who testifies to an admission or declaration heard
over a telephone should identify the party speaking to him.''
This he must do ex necessitate rei by his recognition of the
voice of the speaker, and the admissibility of his testimony
will depend on his previous acquaintance, however slight, with
the party's voice.' If he has heard him speak but once before,
his evidence of identity will not be thereby rendered incom-
petent, though his consequent lack of familiarfty with the
voice may be brought out to ajBfect the value of his evidence
of identification.* The identity of the speaker may of course
be shown by other competent evidence than that of the wit-
ness who heard the statement.' When for any reason direct
communication between parties through a telephone is im-
possible, so that either one with the assent of the other re-
1 Martin V. Martin, 1 Misc. Rep. 181 ; 83 N. W. Rep. 451; Wolfe v. Miss.
In re Turfler, id. 58 ; Young v. Board Pac. R Co., 97 Mo. 473 ; 11 S. W. Rep.
of Com'ra of Mahoning, 51 Fed. Rep. 49 ; Miss. Pao. R. Co. v. Heidenheimer,
585 ; Northern Mich. Lumber Co. v. 83 Tex. 195. Cf. 24 Weekly L. Bui.
Lyon (Mich., 1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 438 ; 345.
Tibbie v. Anderson, 63 Ga. 41 ; Shaply < Stepp v. State, 20 S. W. Rep. 753 ;
V. Abbott, 43 N. Y. 443 ; Rosebrough 31 Tex. Cr. Rep. 349.
V. Ansley, 35 Ohio St. 107; Bright- « Stepp v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. Rep.
man v. Hix, 108 Mass. 346. 849.
2 Attorney-General V. Edison Tele- 6 people v. Ward, 3 N. Y. Critn.
phone Co., 43 L. T. 703, cited in An- Rep. 483, 511 ; Miss. Pao. R Co. v.
derson's Law Diet, p. 1013. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex". 195.
3 Reed t. Burlington, 73 Iowa, 166 ; ' Davis v. Walter, 70 lo wa, 4G5.
§ 85.] ADMISSIONS. 123
quests an operator at an intermediate station to speak for
him, the operator becomes the agent of the speaker;' and as
each party is usually in turn speaker and receiver, the oper-
ator stands in the place of an interpreter, and statements
made by him may be regarded as the admissions of either
party. Such statements are admissible under the principle
which lets in admissions by reference.^
1 Sullivan v. Kuykendall, 83 Ky. ^ Oskamp v. Gadsden (Neb.), 53 N.
483. W. Rep. 718. See ante, § 77.
CHAPTEK YI.
CONFESSIONS.
) 88. Definition and classification.
!j8a. To be regarded with caution.
89. Voluntary character of con-
fessions.
90. Confessions, when voluntary —
Inducements offered.
91. Confessions need not be spon-
<■ taneous.
93. Preliminary examination.
§93. Extra-judicial confessions
must be corroborated.
94. Conclusive character of judi-
cial confessions.
95. Persons offering inducements.
96. Confessions of persons other
than defendant.
97. Confessions of .conspirators.
98. Confessions of treason.
§ 88, Definition and classification. — Confessions are ad-
missions made at any time by a person charged with a crime
stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that
crime/ and they may be either judicial or extra-judicial. The
former, as the term indicates, are those which are made either
at the preliminary examination or at the trial of the accused.
The latter are made out of court, and include not only explicit
or express verbal or written admissions of guilt, but all ad-
missions from which the guilt of the accused may be inferred.^
Confessions may thus be divided into express confessions
and those which are implied from the actions of the accused,
such as his resistance or avoidance of arrest,' his attempts to
escape from custody,* and his silence when accused of crime
under circumstances where he might be naturally expected to
speak.' For silence to be equivalent to confession it must be
shown that the accused heard and understood the specific
1 Stephen's Dig., § 431.
21 Greenl. on Evid., §816.
estate V. Taylor (Mo., 1893), 23 S.
W. Eep. 806 ; Jamison v. People (111.,
1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 486; State v.
Moncla, 39 La. Ann. 368 ; People v.
Fine, 77 Cal. 147; Garden v. State
(Ala., 1888), 4 S. Rep. 833; Com. v.
Brigham, 147 Mass. 414.
< Williams v. State, 24 Tex. App.
17, 33; 4 S. W. Rep. 64; People v.
Ogle, 104 N. Y. 511 ; Ryan v. State,
83 Wis. 468; Elmore v. State (Ala.,
1893), 13 S. Rep. 437.
5 Com. V. Trefethen (Mass., 1893),
31 N. E. Rep. 961; Brown v. State
(Tex., 1893), 33 S. W. Rep. 596; State
V. Reed, 62 Me. 139.
§ SSa.] CONFESSIONS. 125
charge which was made against him/ and that he heard it
under circumstances calling upon him to deny it.^ The pris-
oner may show that his silence or suspicious actions were
caused by threats,' or that the accusations were made in judi-
cial proceedings;* as, for example, at a coroner's inquest.' A
statement implicating the accused, made by some third per-
son to whom he has referred, where the information which
was given is responsive to the inquiry made, may be admitted
as his confession, if he acquiesces in it.'
§ 88a. To be regarded with caution. — Writers on evidence
have pointed out the necessity for caution in the reception of
confessions." Among the facts which furnish a basis for the
employment of a careful scrutiny of this kind of evidence are
the peculiar circumstances in which the accused finds himself —
that is, embarrassed by a present incarceration and threatened
with future imprisonment or death.'' The zeal of acute and
experienced police officials accustomed to dealing with crim-
inals and apt to regard the accused as guilty until his inno-
cent shall be made to appear may often lead to a wilful or
even an unconscious suppression of facts which indicate his
innocence, while exaggerating others which point to his guilt."
JSTumerous cases of false confessions are mentioned in the
books which are calculated to incite suspicion that the accused
may be endeavoring to secure some object not apparent at
first glance. He may be seeking to divert suspicion from some
other suspected person, knowing well that on his own trial he
will be able to establish his innocence.'" Such cases are ad-
mitted, however, to be exceptional, and, while not without
i Brown v. Com., 86 Va. 935 ; Sauls 6 The fact that the accused had im-
V. State (Tex., 1892), 17 S. W. Rep. plements in his possession with
1066 ; Robertson v. State, 17 id. 1068 ; which to attempt an escape may be
30 Tex. App. 496; Brookser v. State, shown against him. State v. Dun-
26 Tex. App. 593. can (Mo., 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 699.
2 Felder v. State, 5 S. W. Rep. 145 ; « United States v. Gardner, 42 Fed.
State V. Carroll, 30 S. 0. 85; Camp- Rep. 833. Of. People v. Powell, B7
bell V. State, 55 Ala. 80 ; Drumright Cal. 348.
V. State, 39 Ga. 430; State v. Smith, U Greenl. on Evid., § 319.
35 La. Ann. 457; Kelley v. State, So SBrister v. State, 36 Ala, 107.
N. Y. 565. See §§ 78, 79, 83-84. « See 1 Greenl. on Evid., g 317.
» Golden v.«State, 35 Ga. 537 ; State >» Wills on Circumstantial Evidence,
V. Flanagan, 35 Ark. 93. p. 88; Phil. & Am. on Evid., 419;
< State V. MuUins, 101 Mo. 514. Chiity, Criin. Law, vol. 1, p. 85.
126 CONFESSIONS. [§ 89.^
weight in estimating the true nature of this sort of evidence,
they should not be invoked without discrimination to im-
peach the general character of a confession which was made
under conditions which properly render it admissible.^ So
the infirmities incident to all evidence which consists of the
reception of language used by others in the presence and hear-
in"- of the witness and which have been adverted to in another
place - must be taken into consideration.
§ 89. Voluntary character of confessions. — Whether a
confession is judicial or extra-judicial it must be shown that it
was wholly free and voluntary.' And a proper foundation
should first be laid for its reception by asking the witness
whether the prisoner had been informed that it would be ad-
vantageous for him to confess, or whether any language had
been used towards him which, by filling his mind with hope
and fear, would render his confession forced or involuntary.*
If such a course has been pursued by some third person, the
confession will be rejected.' This preliminary question of the
voluntar3'^ character of the confession bearing upon its admis-
sibility as evidence is a preliminary question for the judge,^
1 A confession is admissible though Chisenhall, 11 S. E. Eep. 518 ; 106
made to free another from arrest. N. C. 676 ; Johnson v. State, 76 Ga. 76.
People V. Smalling, 94 CaL 113. * 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 319.
2 See ante, §§ 80-83. « People v. Taylor, 93 Mich. 638;
'Gentry v. State, 5 S. W. Rep. 660 ; Cook v. State (Tex., 1893), 33 S. W.
2i Tex. App. 80 ; Collins v. State, 24 Rep. 33 ; State v. Chambers, 45 La.
Tex. App. 141 ; Ross v. State, 67 Md. Ann. 36 ; Smith v. State, 88 Ga. 637 ;
286 ; People v. Taylor, 93 Mich. 638 ; Craig v. State, 18 S. W. Rep. 297 ;
Com. V. Morey, 1 Gray (Mass.), 461 ; State v. Carson, 36 S. C. 534 ; Green
Speai-s V. Ohio, 20 Ohio St. 583. This v. State, 88 Ga. 516 ; State v. Carroll,
rule does not apply to admissions of 30 S. C. 85 ; State v. Kinder, 96 Mo.
collateral facts not involving crim- 548; People v. Fox, 3 N. Y. S. 359;
inal intent. State v. Knowles, 48 State v. Grant, 23 Me. 171 ; Fife v.
Iowa, 593 ; People v. Barton, 49 Cal. Com., 39 Pa. St 339. See post,
633. Contra, Marshall v. State, 5 gg 90, 93.
Tex. App. 273 ; Quinland v. State, 16 e Com. v. Taylor, 5 Cush. (Mass.)
S. W. Eep. 258; 39 Tex. App. 401. 606 ; People v. Fox, 24 N. E. Rep. 923 ;
As to the voluntary character of aff 'g 3 N. Y. S. 359 ; Chabbook's Case,
confessions, see Stafford v. State, 55 1 Mass. 144 ; Thomas v. State, 84 Ga.
Ga. 592 ; State v. Sopher, 70 Iowa, 618 ; State v. Holden, 44 N. W. Rep.
494; Ruberts v. Com. (Ky.), 7 S. W. 123; 48 Minn. 350; State v. Harmon
Rep. 401; Alfred v. State, 37 Miss. (Del.), 3 Harr. 567; People v. Sweet-
296 ; People v. Deacons, 109 N. Y. 374 ; land, 77 Mich. 53 ; People v. Howes,
State V. Dildy, 73 N. C. 325; State v. 81 Mich. 896; People v. Barker, 60
§ 89.] CONFESSIONS. 127
who should on request examine into the matter out of the pres-
ence and hearing of the jury.' "Where the evidence as to the
voluntary character of the confession is conflicting, the ques-
tion may be left to the jury under judicial instructions that if
on all the evidence they find that it was not voluntary they
should reject it.^
The burden of proof to show that the accused has been
unduly influenced is upon the defense.' A refusal to allow
the counsel for the prisoner to cross-examine the witness upon
this point is reversible error.*
It is extremely difiicult to enunciate any general rule by
which may be measured the amount or degree of duress or
improper influence which will destroy the voluntary charac-
ter of the confession. The mere fact that the accused was in
charge of an armed police oflicial or a sheriff, or was hand-
cuffed,' or tied,' or in prison,' will not alone render his con-
fession involuntary.' Threats or promises of immunity which
would have no effect whatever upon a well-balanced, deter-
mined, courageous and experienced man would make a very
deep impression on a feeble woman or upon one of weaker
intellect or will power, or on a person of inimature years and
lacking in experience.'
id. 277; Com. v. Morey, 1 Gray * State v. Miller, 43 La. Ann. 186.
(Mass.), 461 ; Biscoe v. State, 67 Md. 6 ; The voluntary character of the state-
United States V. Nott, 1 McLean, 499 ; ment should be shown before its ad-
State V. Moorman, 27 S. C. 22; Mur- mission, thoughifthisproofisomitted
ray v. State, 25 Fla. 538. it may be introduced after the con-
1 Ellis V. State, 65 Miss. 44 ; Carter fession is received. Smith v. State,
V. State, 37 Tex. 363. 15 S. E. Rep. 675 ; 88 Ga. 627.
2 Thomas v. State, 84,Ga. 613; 10 estate v. Whitfield, 109 N. C. 876.
S. E. Eep. 1016 ; Carr v. -State, 10 S. « State v. Rogers (N. C, 1893), 17 S.
E. Eep. 636; 84 Ga. 250; People v. E. Rep. 897.
Howes (Mich., 1890), 45 N. W. Eep. 'People v. Gastro, 75 Mich. 127;
961; Com. v. Piper, 120 Mass. 185; Com. v. Smith, 119 Mass.,805; People
People V. Cassidy, 14 N. Y. S. 349. v. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9 ; Cox v. People,
SRufer v. State, 25 Ohio St 464; 19 Hun, 340.
People V. Cassiday, 133 N. Y. 613; i- McQueen v. State, 10 S. Rep. 433;
State V. Howard, 14 S. E. Rep. 481. 94 Ala. 5U ; Hornsby v. State, 10 S.
Contra, People v. Sweetland, 77 Mich. Eep. 533 ; 94 Ala. 50 ; State v. CoeUa,
53; 43 N. W. Rep. 779; Nicholson v. 3 Wash. St. 99; Anderson v. State,
State, 38 Md. 140 ; Barnes v. State, 25 Neb. 550 ; State v. Carlisle, 57 Mo.
86 Tex. 356; People v. Soto, 49 Cal. 102.
69 ; Johnson v. State, 30 La. Ann. * See Hoober v. State, 81 Ala. 51 ;
881. 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 219.
128
CONFESSIONS.
[§90.
The statement that a confession extorted by threats or
promises of immunity is not voluntary, and is inadmissible, is
not difficult to understand. The main difficulty lies in the
ascertainment of what language used towards the prisoner
would constitute a threat or promise.' So where defendant
voluntarily testified before the grand jury his testimony is
admissible against him.^ In any event, if it shall appear to
the court that the willx)f the prisoner has been overcome, it
matters not whether it be by threats of harm, promises
of favor, the fear of detection, or by flattery or trickery, it is
the duty of the judge to exclude the confession.^
§ 90. Confessions, when yoliintary — Inducements oifered.
When a prisoner is first cautioned that what he is about to
say will be taken down and may be used against him his con-
fession is not thereby rendered involuntary.* On the other
1 Thompson's Case, 1 Leach, 325 ;
Cass' Case, id. 328; Coib. v. Harman,
4 BaiT, 269 ; Boyd v. State, 2 Humph.
37 ; Dillon's Case, 4 Ball. 116 ; Reg.
V. Gai-ner, 12 Jur. 944; Canada v.
State (Tex., 1890), 16 S. W. Rep. 341.
The testimony of the accused volun-
tarily given as a witness in a prior
trial of another person for the crime
with which the witness is now
charged may be used against him.
See post, g§ 320, 321; Burnett v.
State, 87 Ga. 622 ; People v. Mitchell,
94 Cal. 550 ; People v. Gallagher, 75
Mich. 512; State v. Glahn, 97 Mo.
079.
2 State V. Carroll, 51 N. W. Rep.
1159; State v. Coffee, 56 Conn. 399.
, 3 Regina v. Baldy, 16 Jur. 599 ;
Bubster v. State, 33 Neb. 683 ; 50 N.
. W. Rep. 953; Lauderdale v. State
(Tex., 1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 679 ; Rex
V. Kingston, 4 C. & P. 387 ; Reg. v.
Jarvis, L. R. 1 9. C. R. (C. B.) 96 ;
McCiain v. Com.. 110 Pa, St, 289.
A promise that the accused will be
used as a witness for the state (State
V. Johnson, 30 La. Ann. 881), or that
fio will be helped if he confesses
(State V. Von Sachs, 30 La. Ann. 943),
or a declaration that a suspected per-
son had better pay for what he had
taken (Cook v. State (Tex., 1893), 23
S. W. Rep. 33), that he might as well
own up, coupled with an accusation
of theft (Smith v. State, 88 Ga. 637),
a promise to get the accused out of
the trouble (Searcy v. State, 28 Tex.
App. 513 ; Clayton v. State, 31 Tex.
Crim. App. 489), or a threat to kill
(Bush V. Com. (Ky., 1893), 17 S. W.
Rep. 330), advice that to own up will
save defendant from a heavy sen-
tence (Searles v. State, 6 Ohio Cir.
Ct. 331), that he ought to be hung
(State V. Carson, 36 S. C. 524), a
promise by the district attorney that
he will not be prosecuted (Neely v.
State, 27 Tex. App. 324), to tell the
truth and have no more trouble
(Biscoe V. State, 67 Md. 6),— have all
been held enough to render a con-
fpssion inadmissible because invol-
untary.
* Reg. v. Holmes, 1 C. & K. 248 ; Reg.
V. Atwood, 5 Cox C. C. 333 ; Rizzolo
V. Com., 136 Pa. St. 54 ; United States
V. Kirkwood, 5 Utah, 133 ; Maples v.
State, 3 Heisk. 408 ; Rex v. Baldry, 3
Den. C. C. 480. See post, § 93,
§ 91.] CONFESSIONS. 129
hand, while such a warning is advisable on grounds of human-
ity and justice, it is not, in the absence of statute, an absolute
prerequisite to be complied with before the confession will be
valid.'
If the accused, on being apprehended, has been threatened
or promised immunity in order to obtain a confession, and if
subsequently, when these means are found ineffectual, the
promise or threat has been withdrawn so that he is no longer
influenced, his confession then made will be deemed to be free
and voluntary.'' Even if a confession is involuntary, no valid
reason exists why another later and wholly distinct, volun-
tarily made to the same or to another person after the undue
influence has. ceased, should not be received. It has accord-
ingly been held that where it is shown that the hopes or fears
which were attendant upon the former confession no longer
obtain, the later confession is admissible.^
§ 91. Confession need not be spontaneous. — It is not nec-
essary for a confession to be the spontaneous utterance of the
accused.'' It will be received though it may have been ob-
tained solely by persistent questions put to him by officials
1 Woolfolk V. State, 85 Ga. 69 ; Re- Law Jour. 440 ; Murray v. State, 0
gina V. Arnold, 8 C. & P. 622; Kirby S. Bep. 498; Coffee v. State (Ala.,
V. State, 5 S. W. R 165 ; 23 Tex. App. 1891.1, 6 S. Rep. 493. See, also, iJOst,
13. Where by statute such a caution § 321) ; and the evidence which will
is required, a confession of one crime, rebut the preaumptiou of a continu-
made -while defendant was in custody ance of the influence must be clear
charged with another, is inadmissible and satisfactory. Porter v. Slate, 55
on his trial for the former offense. Ala. 95; Com. v. Culleu, 111 Mass.
Niederluck v. State, 21 Tex. App.'330. 435 ; State v. Jones, 54 Mo. 478 ; State
2 Rex V. Clewes, 4 C. & P. 221 ; Mc- v. Lawhorue, 66 N. C. 638 ; Berry v.
Adoryv. State, 63 Ala. 154; State V. United States, 2 Colo. Terr. 186
Chambers, 39 Iowa, 179 ; Reg. v. Bate, Walker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 245
11 Cox C. C. 686 ; Walker v. State, 7 Kollenberger v. People, 9 Colo. 233
Tex. App. 245 ; State v. Jones, 54 Mo. People v. Johnson, 41 Cal. 452. It is
.478. for the judge to say whether the pre-
3 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 231, citing sumption has been rebutted (Porter
.Guild Case, 5 Halst. 180; Roberts' \. State, supra); and it has been held
Case, 1 Dev. 259, 264 ; Com. v. Har- that the fact that the prisoner was
man, 4 Barr, 269. The improper cautioned that he need not speak is
influence under which the prior con- sufficient to rebut the presumption,
fession is made is presumed to con- Com. v. Ackert, 133 Mass. 403 ; Reg.
tinue until the contrary is shown v. Bate, 11 Cox C. C. 686.
(United States v. Chapman, 4 Am. * 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 239.
9
130 CONFESSIONS. [§ 91.
or private persons, even where the questions by their form
presuppose his guilt,' if in putting such assuming questions no
unfair advantage amounting to duress is gained over him.'
In the absence of statutes rendering such communications
privileged, statements made to a spiritual adviser are admis-
sible against the prisoner.'
A voluntary confession is not inadmissible because made
under a sworn promise of secrecy,* or procured by the promise
of some benefit having no connection with the crime con-
fessed,', as, for example, by a promise that the prisoner may
see visitors or have his shackles removed,' or be released from
a rigorous confinement.' So it has been held that a voluntary
confession is not to be rejected because it was obtained by
means of deception or artifice practiced on the prisoner if the
inducement employed did not cause him. to make an untrue
statem.ent.' Thus, confessions procured by reason of the ac-
cused having been made drunken have been received.' The
authorities, however, are not harmonious, and in more recent
cases it has been decided that confessions obtained by a per-
son who, falsely representing himself to be an attorney at
law, obtained the confidence of the prisoner,'" or by an ofiBcer
who procured the intoxication of the prisoner," are not ad-
1 Rex V. Wild, 1 Mood. Cr. Gas. 452. People, 5 Park. 0. E. 547; Com. t.
'McClain v. Com., 110 Pa. St. 269. Howe, 9 Gray, 110; State v. Feltes,
A voluntary confession, otherwise 51 Iowa, 495; Territory v. McKern
admissible, will not be rejected be- (Idaho, 1890), 26 Pac. Rep. 123. See
cause when made the accused was post, § 137. And a voluntary con-
unlawfully imprisoned. Balbo v. fession made to a detective who is
People, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 424. locked up with the prisoner for that
3 Rex V. Wild, 1 Mood. Cr. Cas. 453 ; purpose, or who in the guise of a
Rex V. Court, 7 C. & P. 486. See friend obtains the confession, is ad-
post, § 177. missible despite the deception em-
* State V. Darnell, 1 Houst. C. C. ployed. State v. Brooks (Mo., 1887),
(Del.) 321; Com. v. Knapp, 9 Pick. 5 S. W. Rep. 257; Heidt v. State
496. (Neb., 1887), 30 N. W. Rep. 626; Os-
*Statev.Wentworth,37N.H. 196; born v. Com. (Ky., 1893), 20 a W.
Eexv. Green, 6 C. & R. 655. Rep. 333. Cf. Stafford v. State, 55
6 Rex V. Lloyd, 6 C. & P. 393. Ga. 392. See post, g 137.
'State V. Tatro, 50 Vt 483. lo People v. Stewart, 75 Mich. 21;
8 1 Greenl. on Evid., g 229 ; Rex v. Cotton v. State, 87 Ala. 875.
Derrington, 3 C. & P. 418. h McCabe v. Com. (Pa., 1887), 8 AtL
9 Lester v. State, 32 Ark, 727 ; Esk- Rep. 45.
ridge v. State, 35 Ala. 30 ; Jeflerds v.
§ 92.] CONFESSIONS. 131
missible. But any person who overhears the remarks of the
prisoner made to himself or to a person such as an attorney
or spiritual adviser who is incompetent as a witness may tes-
tify to what he has heard.' So a confession constituting a
part of a prayer may be testified to by one who has overheard
it, though he may not have heard the whole prayer;^ and a
confession made to a fellow-prisoner in the erroneous belief
that one criminal could not testify against another is not in-
admissible.'
§ 93. Preliminary examination. — The main objects of the
preliminary examination of an accused person are to perpetuate
the testimony * and to ascertain whether the accused should be
admitted to bail, and the prisoner can only be questioned
upon the charge against him after all the evidence incrimi-
nating him has been received. Ifot only must he be free at
the examination from the influences of hope or fear, but he
must realize that he is so. Hence he must not be sworn ; and
if by mistake his statement is taken under oath, it will be
inadmissible upon the ground that its free and voluntary char-
acter has been destroyed by adding to the existing embarrass-
ment of his condition the apprehension of a possible punish-
ment for perjury.* But the fact that a person who voluntarily
appears before a magistrate and confesses is sworn does not
render his confession inadmissible.' The signature of the ac-
cused, unless required by statute to his statements, which
have been committed to writing, is not indispensable ; but as it
» Rex V. Simmons, 6 C. & P. 540, Cal. 421 ; 24 Pac. Rep. 1006 ; Miller
and cases in last note. v. State, 62 Miss. 231 ; 8 S. Rep. 273 ;
2 Woolfolk V. State, 85 Ga. 69. State v. Ril^y, 8 S. Rep. 469 ; 43 La.
'State V. Mitchell, Phill. (N. C.) L. Ann. 995; State v. Jackson, 9 Mont.
447. 458.
* So it is frequently provided by ^ i Greenl. on Evid., g 225 ; Salas v.
statute that the evidence of witnesses State, 31 Tex. Crim. R. 485; People
on the preliminary examination, v. Gibbons, 43, Cal. 557; Com. v.
when committed to writing, shall be Brown, 150 Mass. 830 ; State v. Gar-
admissible on the subsequent trial of vey, 25 La. Ann. 191 ; Hendrickson
the accused in case they shall be dead, v. People, 10 N. Y. 13. Cf. People v.
absent from the state or otherwise Kelley, 47 Cal. 135 ; Rex v. Lewis, 6
unable to testify. "McColIum v. State, C. & P. 161 ; Reg. v. Owen, 9 id. 338.
14 S. W. Rep. 1030 ; 29 Tex. App. 163 ; « People v. MoGloin, 91 N. Y. 241 ■
Potts V. State, 26 Tex. App 663; 14 Com. v. Clark, 130 Pa. St 650; 18
a W. Rep. 446; People v. Nelson, 85 Atl. Kep. 988.
132 CONFESSIONS. [§ 92.
is of use as a means of identification, it should be procured
wlien possible. If he signs it he makes its language his own
and waives all objection to its reception as evidence ; ^ and this
is so though the writing is in a language not understood by
the accused, provided its contents have been translated to him.^
The necessity that the accused should be examined without
being sworn is well illustrated where the prisoner has been
a witness at a coroner's inquest into the crime of which he
stands charged. If the prisoner was a witness at the coroner's
inquest, and if at that time "he was not under arrest and not
charged with the crime, his sworn testimony as a witness may
be used against him upon his trial for the same offense, even
though at the date of giving his testimony at the inquest he
may have been strongly suspected of committing the crime.'
On the contrary, where he is under arrest when he testifies at
the inquest, he stands in the position of one accused of crime
and cannot be compelled to testify against himself, and is en-
titled to the same rights and warning, so far as his sworn
statement is concerned, as is a prisoner on a preliminary exam-
ination.''
The examination to be admissible must be identified. If
the accused has signed with his mark alone, or if his signatnrQ
has not been obtained, it must be shown by parol that the
statement was read to him and that he assented thereto or
acquiesced in it.' One of the principal purposes of the prelim-
inary examination being to preserve the evidence against the
prisoner, the minutes of the examination and the statements
of the witnesses and of the prisoner, when committed to writ-
ing, are usually signed by the magistrate and transmitted to the
1 Com. V. Coy (Mass., 1893), 32 N. 514 Cf. State v. Oilman, 51 Me. 306;
E. Rep. 4. Kirby v. State, 23 Tex. App. 13;
-State V. Demareste, 41 La. Ann. Lovett v. State, 60 Ga. 257; State v.
617. Young, 1 Winst. (N. G.) L., Na 1, 126 ;
'State V. Senn (S. G, 1890), 11 S. E. State v, Zellers, 7 N. J. L. 220; Sny-
Rep. 292. der v. State, 59 Ind. 109), his state-
*> Hendrickson v. People, 10 N. Y. ment is admissible against him,
13; Teachout v. People, 41 N. Y. 8; 5 Harris t. State, 6 Tex. App. 97;
People V. Mondon, 103 N. Y. 214. State v. Mullins, 101 Mo. 514. Cf.
Seeposf, g 345a. But where he ap- Steagels v. State, 53 Tex. App. 464;
pears voluntarily and is properly State v. Miller, 35 Kan. 338; State v.
cautioned (State v. Leuth, 5 Ohio Cir. Dufour, 81 La. Ann. 804.
Ct. R. 94; State v. Mullins, 101 Mo.
§ 93.] CONFESSIONS. 133
district attorney or other officials charged with the duty of
prosecuting offenders. In accordance with the presumption
that an official has properly performed his duty,' the state-
ment as thus written is conclusive of the fact that everything
material that was said or done has been accurately stated,
and parol evidence is not admissible to show the contrary. -
"When the examination has not been committed to writing,
or if the written examination is inadmissible because of a
lack of jurisdiction apparent on its face, or for any other sub-
stantial reason, parol evidence of what the prisoner volun-
tarily stated upon his examination will be received.' So parol
evidence of a confession made extra-judicially is never ren-
dered inadmissible by the fact that on his judicial examina-
tion or by the prisoner himself his confession has been taken
down in writing.* The fact that the prisoner desires to waive
the preliminary examination will not, if he has been properly
cautioned, render his statements inadmissible.'
§ 93. Extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated. —
A naked confession is one uncorroborated by independent proof
of the corpus delicti; ^ and the rule is that while a conviction
may be had upon such a confession if judicial, as, for example,
by a plea of guilty in open court, yet in the case of extra-judi-
cial confessions the corpus delicti must be proved by evidence
aliunde before a conviction will be warranted.'
1 See post, g 231. 5 shaw v. State (Tex., 1893), 22 S.
2 People V. Hinchman, 75 Mich. W. Rep. 588.
587 ; Rex v. Weller, 2 Car. & K 223 ; « 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 217.
Hill V. State, 64 Miss. 431 ; 1 S. Rep. 'Martin v. State (Ala., 1800), 8 S.
494 ; 1 Gieecl. on Evid., § 230. See Rep. 858 (confession of child undi>r
post, § 205 et seq. fourteen) ; MuUins v.Com. (Ky., lS93j,
3 Jeans v. Wheedon, 2 M. & Rob. 20 S. W. Rep. 1035 ;, Westbrook v.
484; State v. Vincent, 1 Houst. (Del.) State (Ga., 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 100;
11 ; State v. Parrish, Busb. Law, 239. United States v. Boese, 46 Fed. Rep.
Parol evidence of the prisoner's state- 917; Wigginton v. Com., 17 S. W.
ment while undergoing examination Rep. 634 ; Willard v. State, 27 Tex.
is not admissible if the magistrate App. 386 ; Patterson v. Com., 88 Ky.
returns that the prisoner i-efused to 313 ; Johnson v. State, 59 Ala. 37 :
speak. Rex v. Walter, 7C. & P. 267. Priest v. State, 10 Neb. 393; People
* State V. Head (S. C, 1893), 16 S. t. Hennessy, 15 Wend. 147 ; State v.
E. Rep. 892 ; Rowland v. Ashby, Ry. Keeler, 28 Iowa, 551 ; Osborn v.
& M. 231; Roscoe, Crim. Evid., 45; Com. (Ky., 1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 223;
Rex V. Spilsbury, 7C. & P. 188; State Bergen v. People, 17 111. 426; Ruloff
V. Leuth, 5 Ohio Cir. Ct Rep. 94. v. People, 18 N. Y. 179. Cf. Com. v.
IM CONFESSIONS. [§ 94.
In testifying to extra-judicial confessions it is absolutely
essential that the language of the accused should be given
in its entirety.' To permit the introduction of fragmentary re^
marks, admitting those which indicate the prisoner's guilt and
suppressing others which by limiting or modifying the former
may establish his innocence, is inconsistent with principles of
justice and humanity. The whole of what the prisoner said
to the witness must be put in evidence and its sufficiency and
weight are for the jury, the prosecuting official being per-
mitted to contradict or impeach that portion which may be
favorable to the accused,^ and the confession, so far as it is
either favorable or against the prisoner, may be altogether re-
jected by the jury in case it is not believed by them.'
If a confession is complete as to incriminating facts it will
not be excluded because the accused was interrupted and pre-
vented from stating exculpatory facts.^ The credit to be
given to the confession depends wholly upon the circumstances
of each case.' A witness will not be permitted to testify that
the prisoner confessed to him that he had committed a crime
which has no connection with the offense for which he is on
trial.*
§ 94. Conclusive character of judicial confessions. — The
guilt of the accused may or may not be inferred by the jury
from evidence that the accused made an extra-ju'dicial confes-
Sanborn, 116 Mass. 61; Brown v. v. State, 86 Ala. 60 ; State v. Feltes, 51
State, 33 Miss. 433 ; State v. Leuth, 5 Iowa, 495. See ante, § 80.
Ohio Oil-. Ct. Eep. 94. Where the » State v. Mahan, 32 Vt. 241 ; People
corpus delicti on an inclictment for v. Taylor, 93 Mich. 638 ; Eespublica v.
passing couatei'feit money is shown McCarthy, 2 Ball. 86, 88 ; People v.
by proof that the counterfeit was Cassidy, 133 N. Y. 613; Com. v.
passed as genuine, the confession of Brown, 149 Mass. 35 ; Long v. State,
the accused that he passed the note 86 Ala. 36 ; State v. West, 1 Houst.
is corroborated. United States v. (Del.) 371 ; Griswold v. State, 34 Wis.
Marcus, 53 Fed. Rep. 784. 144 ; Furst v. State, 47 N. W. Rep. 1116 ;
1 Berry v. Com., 10 Bush (Ky.), 15 ; 31 Neb. 403 ; Johnson v. State, 86 Ga.
Cable V. Com. (Ky., 1893), 30 S. W. 90. See, also, as to admissions, § 81.
Rep. 330 ; Pace v. Com. (Tex., 1898), * Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 530.
20 S, W. Rep. 763 ; Com. v, Goddard, ' Coon v. State, 18 Sm. & M. 346.
80 Mass, 403 ; Real v. People, 42 N. Y. « Com. v. Campbell, 155 Mass. 537 ;
270 ; State v. Mack, 48 Wis. 271. 80 N. E. Rep. 72 ; Youree v. Territory
2 Taylor t. Com., 18 Atl. Eep, 588; (Ariz., 1892), 29 Pac. Rep. 894; Reg.
People V. Irwiu, 77 Cal. 494 ; Dodson v. Butler, 2 Car. & Kir. 331. Contra,
State V. Underwood, 75 Mo. 330.
§ 95.] COKFESSIONS. 135
sion, according as they believe it is corroborated as to the
corpus delicti. But a judicial confession voluntarily made in
the hearing of the jury by the prisoner is, if he is of sound
mind, conclusive on them. On such a confession, furnishing
direct and original evidence of guilt, the prisoner may be con-
victed and sentenced to death or a term of imprisonment.'
"When, however, the confession of the accused is elicited in
the preliminary examination under the statutes 1 and 2 P. &
M., ch. 13; 7 Geo. 4, ch. 64, and similar statutory provisions
existing in the United States, the confession of the prisoner
committed to writing must be submitted with other evidence
to the trial jury to be weighed by them.-
§95. Persons offering inducements. — A conclusive pre-
sumption that a confession is involuntary is created by the
circumstance that the person who has induced the accused to
confess by employing threats or promises was so related to
him that he could exercise authority or power over him.'
Thus, where the inducements proceed from the prosecuting
witness,* from the district attorney,* from members of the
coroner's jury,* from a police official or jailor in whose custody
the accused is,' or from a magistrate,' the confession will be
rejected.'
Whether a confession procured by a threat or promise by
one having no power over the prisoner, and consequently un-
able to fulfill the threat or promise, creates a conclusive presump-
tion of the existence of duress, the authorities are divided."
So it has been held that a threat made by any one would cre-
ate a conclusive presumption that the confession was not free
1 Com. V. Brown, 150 Mass. 030. estate v. Carson, 15 S. E. Rep. 588.
2 A confession made before a cor- ' Clayton v. State, 31 Tex. Criin. R.
oner is not a judicial confession 489 ; Com. v. Russell, 156 Mass. 196 :
which will dispense with corrobora- 30 N. E. Rep. 763 ; People v. Thom-
tion. State v. Leuth, 5 Ohio Cir. son, 84 Cal. 598 (sherilf) ; Com. v.
Ct Rep. 94 Hosier, 4 Barr, 364
3 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 223. See 8 Guild's Case, 5 Halst. 163.
ante, § 89. « Neeley v. State, 37 Tex. App. 324 ;
♦Roberts' Case, 1 Dev. 359; Com. State v. Didy, 73 N. C. 325; State v.
V. Sego, 105 Mass. 210 ; Thompson's Crowson, 98 id. 595.
Cases, 1 Leach C. C. 33.5. '" Parke, B., in Rex v. Spencer, 7 C.
sSearles v. State, 6 Ohio Cir, Ct & P. 776.
831.
136 CONFESSIONS. [§§ 96, 97.
and voluntary.' The contrary doctrine is maintained in some
of the cases," which support the proposition that a threat or
a promise must be made by one actually in authority.
Upon general principles, the distinction made where threats
are made by private persons would seem without foundation,
inasmuch as the question, was the will of accused actually sub-
jugated, is one of fact, to be decided on all the circumstances
of each particular case.^ But the fact that the person using
threats did not possess the means of carrying them into exe-
cution would doubtless, if known to the prisoner, detract from
or wholly nullify the effect calculated to be produced upon
his mind.*
§ 96. Confessions of persons other than defendant. — The
incriminating declarations of third persons that they com-
mitted the crime with which the prisoner is charged are
merely hearsay unless such persons are produced as witnesses.*
But where the prosecution alleges that the third person was
an accomplice, his confession that he was the principal is ad-
missible upon the trial of the latter.' i
§ 97. Confessions of conspirators. — ■ The same principle
that obtains in cases of joint civil liability is applicable where
two or more persons are jointly indicted for the same crime.'
The existence of the conspiracy or combination being satis-
factorily established,' the confession or incriminating declara-
tions or acts of any member made in the prosecution of the
enterprise are admissible against all. When, however, the com-
mon undertaking is consummated or abandoned, the com-
1 Rex V. Dunn, 4 C. & P. 543 ; Rex ^ Com. v. Gorey, 1 Gray (Mass.),
V. Slaughter, 8 id. 734; Guild's Case, 463.
5 Halst. 163; Knapp Case, 9 Pick. » Welsh v. State (Ala., 1893), 11 S.
4UC, 500, cited in 1 Greenl. on Evid., Rep. 450 ; State v. West, 45 La. Ann.
g 2i;',. 14 ; 13 S. Rep.' 173 ; State v. Duncan
•! Early v. Com., 86 Va. 921 ; Rex v. (Mo,, 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 699 ; State
Uardwick, 6 Pet. Abr. 84; Rex v. v. Fletcher (Oreg., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep.
3Ioore, 2 Den. C. C. 532 ; Reg. v. 575 ; Owensby v. State, 82 Ala. 63 ;
Reeve, 12 Cox C. C, 179. 3 S. Rep. 764; State v. Duncan, 6
3 McAdory v. State, 63 Ala. 154 ; Ired. L. (N. C.) 236 ; State v. Haynes,
Cum. V. Tuckerman, 10 Gray, 190; 71 N. C. 79.
Com. V. Howe, 2 Allen (Mass.), 153; epace' v. State (Tex., 1893), 20 a
Newman v. State, 49 Ala. 9 ; Johnson W. Rep. 763. See as to testimony of
V. State, 61 Ga. 305 ; State v. Darnell, accomplices, gg 820, 331.
1 Houst. (Del.) 321 ; Flagg v. People, ^ See ante, § 69.
40 Mich. 706; State v. Phelps, 11 Vt. sjioGraw v. Com. (Ky., 1893), 30
no. ' S. W. Rep. 879.
§ 98.] CONFESSIONS. 137
m unity of interest^ no longer exists. The confession of any
participant in tile criminal design is then only receivable
against himself.' In other words, the confession of an accom-
plice or participant in a criminal act is only receivable against
his associates when it can be connected with and is relevant
to acts for which the latter are responsible.^
Where persons other than the defendant are mentioned in
a confession, and it is not alleged in the indictment that they
are implicated in the crime, the confession is admissible and
the court must instruct the jury to disregard this fact.'
§ 98. Confessions of treason. — In consequence of the stat-
utory requirement that to convict a prisoner of the crime of
treason the testimony of two witnesses to an overt act was
required, it was at one time doubted whether an extra-judicial
confession of treason was admissible against one charged with
that crime.* It is now the law that while no one can be con-
victed of the crime solely u^pon a confession which does not
assume the form of a plea of guilty in open court, yet any
confession, made extra-judicially, is admissible against him, its
weight and credibility being for the jury. It must, however,
be proved by two witnesses to be admissible.'
1 Pace V. State (Tex., 1893), 30 S. W.. 2 Priest v. State, 10 Neb. 393 ; State
Rep. 763; Ryan v. State, 83 Wis. 486; t. Miras (S. C, 1893), 17 S. E. Rep.
State T. Grant (Iowa, 1803), 53 N. W. 830 ; State v. Weasel, 30 La. Anu.
Rep. 120; Wilbur v. Strickland, 1 919; Crosby v. People, 27 N. E. Rep.
Rawle, 458 ; United States v. Gibert, 49 ; Gove v. State, 58 Ala. 391 ;
3 Sumn. 16; State v. Donelon (La., Spencer v. State, 31 Tex. 64; State v.
1893), 13 S. Rep. 933; Cable v. Com., Tibeau, 30 Vt. 100; Ake v. State, 31
20 S. W. Rep. 230 ; Searles v. State, 6 Tex. 476 ; Com. v. Thompson, 99
Ohio Cir. Ct R. 331 ; Belcher v. State, Mass. 444. The silence or failure to
125 Ind. 419 ; State v. McKenzie, 103 explain of one jointly indicted with
Mo. 630; McGraw v. State, 30 S. W. othere where statements incriniiDat-
Rep. 279 ; People v. ColIinS, 64 Cal. ing hira are made by one of his asso-
393; United States v. Gooding, 12 ciates does not, it is held, raise a
Wheat. 469 ; Amer. Fur Ca v. United presumption against him. Com. v.
States, 3 Pet. 858 ; Oorbett v. State, McDermott, 133 Mass. 441.
5 Ohio Cir. Ct. 155. The confession 3 Rex v. Hearne, 4 C. & P. 315 :
or incriminating act may be given in State v. Cai'r, 53 Vt. 37, 41.
evidence prior to proof of the con- ■> 1 East P. C. 131-133. See post,
spiracy on the'promise of the prose- § 380.
cutor to establish a prima /acte con- ■''Francis' Case, 1 East P. C. 133-
spiracy later. Hall v. State (Fla., 135; 1 Burr's Trial, 196, cited in 1
1893), 13 S. Rep. 449 ; State v. Grant Greenl. on Evid., g 385,
(Iowa, 1893), 58 N. W. Rep. 130;
State V, McGee, 46 N. W. Rep. 764.
CHAPTER YIL
DYING DECLARATIONS.
§ 100. Definition. I § 102. In what cases admissible.
101. Sense of approaching death. | 103. Form of the declaratioa
§ 100. Definition. — Another class of exceptions to the rule
rejecting hearsay comprises dying declarations. These decla-
rations may be defined as statements or declarations of some
material fact concerning a homicide, made by a person who
is the victim and who fully realizes that he is in imminent
danger of death, and that in a very short time.^ The fact
that the speaker believes he is at the point of death, and that
in all probability in a very short time all that is spiritual and
immortal will forever forsake the body, and will encounter
the dread possibilities of the unknown and supernatural world,
is deemed to furnish a sanction equivalent to that of a solemn
and positive oath administered in court.^ If, therefore, the
deceased was totally irreligious, so that he had no belief in a
state of future reward or punishment, this fact alone, while
not rendering his statement inadmissible, is competent to go
to the jury as affecting the credit to be given it."
On the other hand, the fear of punishment for perjury, so
far as it can be administered in this world, is wholly absent,
and unless the dying man possesses and is controlled by a
vivid and conscientious feeling of accountability to the Judge
of all men in whose presence he expects soon to appear, it is
probable that his utterances may be materially influenced and
biased against the accused by the passions of revenge and
anger. But the fact that the declarant believed, as a matter
of religious opinion, that he may repent of any sin at any
1 See 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 156 ; Goodall v. State, 1 Oreg. 333 ; State
People V. Olrastead, 30 Mich. 435. v. Elhott, 45 Iowa, 386; State v. Ah
2 Re.x V. Woodcock, 2 Leach Cr. Lee, 8 Oreg. 214. See post, % 313, as
Cas. 567. to the requirements of rehgious be-
3 Hill V. State, 64 Miss. 431: 1 S. lief of witnesses.
Eep. 494 : People v. Chin, 51 Cal. 597 ;
§ 101.J
DYING DECLAEATI0N8.
139
moment before death, will not render his declaration inad-
missible.^
§ 101. Sense of approaching death. — The deceased person
when he made the declaration must have been conscious of
tho near approach of death, and must believe that there is
absolutely no hope of his recovery.'^ The mental condition
of the declarant in this respect must therefore be shown be-
fore his declaration is received, and if he entertains any hopes,
however slight, that his injury is not mortal, his statement
will be rejected.'
The statement of the dying person himself that he is dying
should always be received,* as it is the most satisfactory and
convincing evidence ; but upon this important point no form
of words is necessary, nor is it the only evidence. So his
resignation to approaching death or his belief that he may re-
cover may be shown by independent evidence and may be
proven by the statements of those attending him or inferred
from the circumstances of the case.' Thus, where the de-
I North V. People, 28 N. E. Rep.
966: 139 111.81.
2Whitaker v. State, 79 Ga. 87; 3
a H. Rep. 403 ; State v. Johnson, 34
N. W. Rep. 177; 73 Iowa, 396; Ste-
phenson V. State, 110 Ind. 358; State
V. Mathes, 90 Mo. 571; Darbey v.
State. 23 Tex. App. 407 ; Irby v. State,
33 id. 103; Peak v. State, 50 N. J. L.
179; 13 Atl. Rep. 701; Walton v.
State, 79 Ga. 46 ; 5 S. ,E. Rep. 305 ;
Vaughn v. Com., 86 Ky, 431 ; 6 S. W.
Rep. 153; State v. Murdy, 81 Iowa,
603 ; People v. Bemmerly, 87 Cal. 117 ;
35 Pac. Rep. 266 ; Snell v. State, 29
Tex. App. 336 ; State v. Turlington,
102 Mo. 643; Hammill v. State, 90
Ala. 577; United States v. Heath, 19
Wash. Law R 818; Hall v. Com.
(Va., 1892), 15 S..E. Rep. 517; Young
V. State (Ala., 1892), 10 S. Rep. 918;
State V. Bannister, 35 S. C. 390 ; 14
S. E. Rep. 678 ; McQueen v. State, 94
Ala. 50 ; 10 S. Rep. 433 ; Archibald v.
State, 123 Ind. 133 ; Scott v. People,
63 IlL 508; Kehoe v. Com., 80 Pa. St
127 ; Com. v. Black, 108 Mass. 296
State V. Blackburn, 80 N. C. 474
State V. Daniel, 31 La. Ann. 91 ; Com,
V. Thompson (Mass., 1893), 83 N. E.
Rep. 1111 ; State v. Spencer, 80 La
Ann. 363 : State v. Schmidt, 73 Iowa,
469; Powers v. State, 87 Ind. 144.
3 See cases in last note. If the de-
clarant is conscious of approaching
death, it is not material that no one
told him that he was about to die.
Hammel v. State, 90 Ala. 577.
* Com. V. Thompson (Mass., 1893),
33 N. E. Rep. 1111.
5 People V. Bemmerly, 35 Pac. Rep.
266; 87 Cal. 117; People v. Samario,
84 Cal. 484 ; Pulcher v; State, 13 S.
W. Rep. 750; 28 Tex. App. 465; Pul-
liam V. State, 6 S. Rep. 839 ; 88 Ala.
1 ; Archibald v. State, 123 Ind. 133 ;
People V. Smith, 104 N. Y. 491 ; Peo-
ple V. Ramirez, 73 Cal. 408 ; State v.
Newhouse, 38 La. Ann. 863 ; 3 S. Rep.
799 ; Ledbetter v. State, 23 Tex. App.
247 ; State v. Schmidt, 73 Iowa, 469 ;
35 N. W. Rep. 590 ; People v. Farmer,
140
DYING DECLAEATIONS.
[§ 101.
ceased states that he was sure to die ; ' that he never expected
to recover from his wound ; ^ that he knew he could not live ; '
that he was killed,* or makes use of similar expressions, it is
conclusively presumed that he spoke under a full sense of ap-
proaching death. But where the declarant merely states that
he has "no hope at present,'"^ or says "Who knows? perhaps
I may get well,"" or expresses a hope if he dies to meet one
in heaven,'' his declaration not being made in apprehension of
approaching death, is inadmissible.^
Though the dying statement was made while the deceased
was still hopeful of recovery, yet it is receivable if he subse-
quently ratifies it when all hope has departed.** So, on the
other hand, the fact that the dying man is afterwards encour-
ao'ed to believe that he will recover will not render inadmis-
sible his statement previously made in immediate expectation
of death.'" But the fact that death does not immediately ensue-
18 Pac. Rep. 800 ; State v. Block, 42
La. Auii. 861; United States v.
Heath, 20 D. C. 272 ; Jordan v. State,
81 Ala. 20 ; Dixon v. State, 13 Fla. 636 ;
Dumas v. State, 62 Ga. 58 ; State v.
Wilson, 24 Kan. 189 ; People v. Com.,
87 Ky. 487 ; 9 S. W. Rep. 509 ; Mock-
abee v. Com., 78 Ky. 380; State v.
Mills, 91 N. C. 581 ; Railing v. Com.,
113 Pa. St. 37.
1 State V. Umble (Mo., 1893), 22 S.
W. Rep. 378 ; Crump v. Com. (Ky.,
1893), 20 id. 390 ; State v. Aldrich, 50
Kan. 666; Wallace v. State (Ga.,
1893), 15 S. E. Rep. 700; Evans v.
State (Ark., 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 1026 ;
State V. Fletcher (Greg., 1893), 33
Pac. Rep. 575 ; State v. Turlington,
103 Mo. 642; PuUiam v. State, 88
Ala. 1.
2 State V. Nance, 25 S. C. 168.
3 People V. Callaghan, 4 Utah, 49.
* State V. Russell, 33 Pac. Rep. 854 ;
State V. Elkins, 101 Mo. 344; 14 S.
W. Rep. 116; Luker v. Cora. (Ky.,
1887), 5 S. W. Rep. 354.
' Rex v. Jenkins, L. R. 1 Cr. Gas.
18T.
6 Jackson v. Com., 19 Gratt. 656.
7 State V. Medlicott, 9 Kan. 257.
s Graves v. People (Colo., 1893), 32
Pac. Rep. 63.
9 Reg. V. Steele, 12 Cox C. C. 168.
10 State V. Shafer (Greg., 1893), 33
Pao. Rep. 545; State v. Tilghman,
11 Ired. (N. C.) Law, 573; State v.
Turlington, 102 Mo. 643; Lursher v.
Com., 26 Gratt. 968. Cf. Ex parte
Nettles, 58 Ala. 268. It is for the
court to determine whether the sense
of approaching death was present
(Roten V. State (Fla., 1898), 13 S. Rep.
890) ; and the burden of proof is upon
the prosecution. Peak v. State, 50
N. J. L. 222 ; Digby v. People. 118 111.
125; Wallace v. Slate (Ga., 1893), 15
S. E. Rep. 710 ; Evans v. State (Ark.,
1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 1026. A state-
ment made two or three minutes be-
fore death is admissible as a dying
statement, though the deceased did
not say he believed he was going to
die until after he had finished his
declaration. Peo"ple v. Sare Bo, 73
Cal. 623; State v. Spencer, 80 La.
Add. 863.
§ 102.]
DYING DECLAEATIONS.
14:1
furnishes no valid ground for rejecting the declaration of the
deceased, if when it was made it is shown he was fully im-
pressed with the feeling that he would die in a short time.'
Thus, declarations made forty-eight hours,^ ten days,'' eleven
days " or six weeks * before the death of the declarant have
been received.^
§ 102. In what cases admissible. — The declaration of a
deceased person which is offered in evidence as his dying dec-
laration is only admissible where his death is the subject of
an accusation of homicide and the circumstance of that death
the subject-matter of the declaration.'
1 State V. Schmidt, 73 Iowa, 469.
- Woodcock's Case, 3 Leach Or. Cas.
553.
3 Tinkler's Cage, 1 East P. C. 354.
* Rex V. Mosely, 1 Mood. 97.
5 Fulolier v. State, 28 Tex. App. 465.
estate v. Crabtree (Mo., 1893), 30
S. W. Rep. 7 ; State v. Bannister, 35
S. C. 29!) ; 14 S. E. Rep. 678 ; Com. v.
Haney, 127 Mass. 455 (four days);
Kehoe v. Com., 85 Pa. St. 127 (two
days). The law governing the ad-
missibility and use as evidence of
dying declarations is thus admirably
summed up by the court in People v.
Taylor, 59 Cal. 640: "Declarations
of the deceased are admissible upon
a trial for murder only as to those
things as to which he would have
been competent to testify if sworn as
a witness in the cause. They must
relate to facts only, not to mere mat-
ters of opinion. It is essential to the
admissibility of such declarations, and
it is a primary fact to be proved by
the party offering them, that they
were made under a sense of impend-
ing death. But it Is not necessary
that they be stated at the time to be
so made. It is enough if it satisfac-
torily appears in any mode that they
were made under that sanction,
whether it be directly proved by the
express language of the declarant, or
be inferred from his evident danger,
from the opinions of the medical or
other attendants expressed to him, or
from his conduct or other circum-
stances of the case. Such declara-
tions must relate to the cir(?umstauces
of the death ; they cannot be received
as proof when not connected as res
gestce with the death."
' 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 156; Rex v.
Mead, 2 B. & C. 605 ; People v. Fong
Ah Sing, 70 Cal. 8; Marcum v. Com.
(Ky., 1890), 1 S. W. Rep. 727; People
v. Smith, 104 N. Y. 505; State x.
Perigo (Iowa), 45 N. W. Rep. 399;
People V. Davis, 56 N. Y. 96 ; Hines
V. Com. (Ky.). 13 S. W. Rep. 445;
State V. Baldwin, 79 Iowa, 714 ; 45
N. W. Rep. 397; United States v.
Heath, 19 Wash. L. R. 818 ; State v.
Shelton, 2 Jones' (N. C.) L. 360 ; State
V. Nelson, 101 Mo. 464 ; Com. v. Cary,
12 CusIl (Mass.) 246; Crookham v.
State, 5 W. Ya. 510 ; People v. Knapp,
26 Mich. 113; Walker v. State, 53
Ala. 193. If a crime is by statute
deolai-ed to be murder in case the
person upon whom it was committed
dies, as, for example, committing an
abortion, dying declarations are gen-
erally inadmissible under the rule
stated in the text, as the party is not
indicted for the homicide. The fact
of death is not a constituent of the
crime, but affects the punishment
alone. Railing v. Com., 110 Pa. St
142 DYING DECLAEATIONS. [§ 102.
In this connection it may be well to distinguish clearly be-
tween declarations of deceased persons which are admissible
as original evidence as a part of the res gestw and those which
are wholly hearsay but which are received solely because they
are the dying declarations. In regard to the former it need
only be said here that the grounds for their admission being
their natural, contemporaneous and explanatory connection
with the main transaction, they are admitted in all cases
whether criminal or civil.' On the other hand, the declara-
tions of the deceased not constituting a part of the res gestos,
but which are his dying declarations, are mainly admitted as a
matter of necessity in order that homicide may not go un-
punished in cases where the declarant's death is the matter of
a criminal investigation. Here, if no third person was present
at the instant of the homicide (and this, it is believed, is very
frequently the case), it would be practically impossible to pro-
cure any direct evidence upon the main fact in issue, the mouth
of the accused being closed by the policy of our law unless he
shall see fit to open it.^
When the injured party, if living, would be a competent
witness against the accused, no injustice will be done by ad-
mitting his language, relevant to the issue, uttered under cir-
cumstances which are considered as equal to his being sworn.'
Hence where the declarant would not have been a competent
witness if alive, his ante-^noHem declaration will not be re-
103; People v. Davis, 66 N. Y. 93; Graves v. People (Colo., 1893), 33 Paa
State V. Harper, 35 Ohio St 78 ; Rep. 63 ; Eiland v. State, 53 Ala. 322 ;
Maine v. People, 9 Hun, 113 ; People Palmore v. State, 29 Ark. 348 ; People
V. Aiken, 15 Oregon, 137 ; Wooten v. v. Lee Chuck (Cal.), 15 Pac. Rep. 332;
State, 39 Ga. 223 ; Starkey v. People, Keener v. State, 18 Ga. 194 ; Williams
17 111. 21 ; Johnson v. State, 50 Ala. v. People, 54 111. 433: State v. Elliot^
456. Contra, Montgomery v. State, 45 Iowa, 486 ; Carico v. Com., 7 Bush
80 Ind. 338; State v. Dickinson, 41 (Ky.), 134; State v. Robinson, — La.
Wis. 299 ; Com. v. Homer, 158 Mass. Ann. 340 ; State v. Spalding, 34 Minn.
343. 361 ; Hawthorne v. State, 61 Miss. 749 ;
1 See State v. Sullivan, 51 Iowa, 142 ; State v. Downs, 91 Mo. 19 ; State v.
Walker v. State, 63 Ala. 105 ; State v. Matthews, 78 N. C. 523 ; State v. Dod-
Ramsay, 82 Mo. 133 ; Howard v. son, 4 Oreg. 64 ; Horbach v. State, 43
State, 23 Tex. App. 255; Cluverius v. Tex. 343; State y. Abbott, 8 W. Va,
Com., 81 Va 787 ; Darby v. State, 3 741 ; Wood v. State, 93 liid. 369. See
S. E. Rep. 363. fost, S 345.
2 See State v. McCoy, 111 Ma 517; » 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 157,
§ 102.]
DYING DECLARATIONS.
14-£
ceived.^ Thus, statements made by the deceased which, if he
were on the stand, would be hearsay- will not be received.^
So, too, the declarations must be relevant, and must con-
tain statements of facts and circumstances and not merely
conclusions, mental impressions or matters of opinion,' ex-
cept in the cases where an expression of opinion would be
relevant if the declarant himself were testifying in court/
So a dying declaration that the killing was intentional,* with-
out reason or provocation,* or for nothing,' is not such an ex-
pression of opinion as will render it incompetent.
The admissibility of dying declarations does not depend
upon the small amount of evidence against the prisoner,' or
upon the plea in defense, whether it is an alibi, insanity or
self-defense.' Like all preliminary questions bearing upon the
admissibility of evidence, the determination whether a dying
declaration is to be received is for the judge upon all the facts
involved.'"
To obviate the creation of prejudice against the accused in
the minds of the jurors, it is advisable, as a matter of practice,
to examine the Witness out of their presence and hearing." It
1 Reg. V. Perkins, 9 C. & P. 395 ;
State V. Thomason, 1 Jones' (N. C.)
Law, 374 ; State v. Foot Yon (Oreg.,
1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 537 ; North v. Peo-
ple, 139 111. 81.
2 Johnson v. State, 17 Ala. 618.
'State T.Williams, 67 N. C. 13;
State m; ElklnSi 14 S. W. Rep. 116;
101 Mo. 344 ; State v. Perigo, 45 N.
"W. Rep. 399,; 80 Iowa, 87; State v.
Saunders, 13 Pac. Rep. 441 ; State v.
Black, 43 La. Ann. 861 ; 8 S. Rep.
594; State v. O'Brien (Iowa, 1891), 46
N. W. Rep. 753; Matherly v. Com.
(Ky., 1893), 19 S. W. Rep. 977 ; Jones
V. State, 53 Ark. 845 ; Scott v. People,
63 111. 508; People v. Olmstead, 30
Mich. 481. See post, %% 186, 187.
^Brotherton v. People, 75 N. Y. 159 ;
State V. Foot Yon (Oreg., 1893), 38
Pac. Rep. 587.
5 Boyle V. State, 105 Ind. 470 ; State
V. Nettlebush, 30 Iowa, 357 ; Payne
V. State, 61 Miss. 161.
« State V. Black. 42 La. Ann. 861 ;
Wroe V. State, 20 Ohio St 460.
' Roberts v. State, 5 Tex. App. 141.
SLuker v. State (Ky., 1888), 5 S.
W. Rep. 854.
9 Boyle V. State, 105 Ind. 469. A
failure to object promptly to a dec-
laration as inadmissible because con-
sisting of opinion v.aives the objec-
tion. State V. O'Brien, 81 Iowa, 88.
"State V. Baldwin, 45 N. W. Rep.
297; State v. Poll, 1 Hawks, 444;
McDaniel v. State, 8 Sm. & M. 401 ;
Com. V. Murray, 3 Ashm. 41 ; State
V. Frazier, 1 Houst. 176 ; Territory v.
Klehn (Wash., 1889), 21 Pac. Rep. 31;
Hill's Case, 3 Gratt 594; Kehoe v.
Com., 85 Pa. St. 127 ; Roten \. State
(Fia., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 910. See ante,
% 13. Contra, Dumas v. State, 62
Ga58.
11 People V. Smith, 104 N. Y. 493
State V. Furney, 41 Kan. 115
Swisher v. Com,, 36 Gratt (Va.) 963
Price V. State, 73 Ga. 441.
144 DYING DECLAEATIONS. [§ 102.
is in the discretion of tlie court, however,' to hear the evidence
bearing on the admissibility of the declaration in the presence
of the jury, they being instructed by the court that they
should not allow anything then heard to influence their ver-
dict.2
"When it has been decided that a dying declaratioTi is ad-
missible, its credibility and weight are wholly within the
province of the jury,' and the evidence contained in the dec-
laration is to be weighed by them by the application of the
same rules that are employed in the case of a living witness.*
The declaration itself can be introduced in evidence not only
against the accused but in his favor as well.^ In case only a
portion of the declaration is admissible it has been held that
the incompetent portion may be stricken out on motion;" but
generally all that the deceased said relevant to the guilt or
innocence of the accused and bearing upon the facts of the
killing should be admitted, and it is error for the court to
refuse to do so.''
So it has been held that the admission of a dying declara-
tion does not violate a constitutional provision that the accused
shall be confronted with the witnesses against him and shall
hear the testimony against himself.^ Dying declarations as
such are never admissible in civil cases, although they may be
admissible upon other grounds than their ante-mortem charac-
ter ; " and the same principle is observed as to their admissibil-
1 State V. Schafer (Oreg., 1893), 32 rejected. State v. Nelson, 101 Mo.
Pac. Rep. 545. 464
3 People V. Smith, 104 N. Y. 498; « People v. Farmer, 77 Cal. 1; 18
Johnson v. State, 47 Ala. 9; State v. Pac. Rep. 800.
Cain, 20 W. Va. 679 ; Prince v. State, ' Mattox v. United States, 146 U. S.
72 Ga. 441. 140 ; People v. Beach, 87 N. Y. 508.
3 State V. McCanon, 57 Mo. 160 ; « State v. Saunders, 14 Oreg. 300 ;
State V. Mathes, 90 id. 571. Com. v. Gary, 12 Gush. 246 ; Camp-
< Jones V. State (Miss., 1893), 13 S. bell v. State, 11 Ga. 353; Brown v.
Rep. 444. Gom., 73 Pa. St. 331 ; State v. Dick-
■'■' People V. Knapp, 36 Md. 112; inson, 41 Wis. 399 ; Robbins v. State,
Brook V. Gom. (Ky., 1892). 17 S. W. 8 Ohio St 131 ; People v. Murray, 53
Rep. 337 ; Rex v. Scaife, 1 Mood. & Mich. 388.
R. 551 ; Felder v. State, 23 Tex. App. 9 Wooten v. Wilkins, 39 Ga. 333 ;
477; Ghittenden v. Com. (Ky., 1888), Daily v. N. Y. etc. Co., 33 Conn. 356;
9 S. W. Rep. 386. But a declaration Fi-iedman v. Railway Co., 7 Phila.
of the deceased that he did not want 203 ; Marshall v. Railroad Co., 48 111.
the accused to be prosecuted will be 475. Cf. CajoUe v. Ferrie, 23 N. Y. 90.
§ 103.] DYING DEOLAEATIONS. 145
ity upon the trials of indictnients for all crimes when homicide
is not an essential and indispensable element in the nature of
the offense.' An apparent exception to this rule occurs in the
case 01 the killing of two or more persons by the prisoner for
the raurd^ of one of whom he is placed on trial. Upon the
ground that the two deaths are merely parts of one transac-
tion, the dying declaration of A. has been admitted on a trial
for the killing of B. where it was shown that the deaths were
nearly identical in place or time, and the means adopted by
the defendant in bringing about the death of B. resulted also
in the death of A.''' But the circumstance taken alone that
the declarant's death occurred in the disturbance in which the
person for whose homicide the prisoner was indicted was also
killed is insufficient to admit his declaration when it is not
shown that his death was directly due to some act of the de-
fendant.'
§ 103. Form of the declaration. — That the deceased should
have been formally examined or that he should be questioned'
cLS though he were upon the witness stand is never required'.-
Dying declarations elicited by means of leading questions or
urgent and persistent solicitations are receivable.* The fact
that deceased was under the influence of a narcotic while
making his statement will not render it inadmissible,' pro-
vided they are complete in themselves and nothing remains
to be said by the declarant which will qualify, enlarge or re-
strict their meaning.*
1 Johnson v. State, 50 Ala. 456; v. People, 139 III. 81; 28 N. E. Rep.
State V. Bohan, 15 Kan. 407 ; People S66 ; Com. v. Haney, 137 Mass. 455 ;
V. Aiken, 15 Oregon, 137; Com. v. State v. Foot You (Oreg., 1893), 32
Homer, 153 Mass. 343 ; Rex v. Mead, Pac. Rep. 103.
2 B. & C. 605 (robbery) ; Wilson v. 6 Hays v. Com. (Ky,, 1890), 14 S.
Boarem, 15 Johns. 286. See ante, W. Rep. 833. And where the deolar-
g 102. ant is unable to speak he may make
2 Rex V. Baker, 2 M. & Rob. 53 ; his statement by using signs, and,
State V. Terrell, 12 Rich. (S. C.) 321 ; however slight they may be, as, for
State V. Wilson, 23 La. Ann. 559. example, squeezing the hand, his
Contra, Brown v. Com., 73 Pa. St declaration is not inadmissible on
331, that, account. Com. v. Carsey, 11
3 State V. Westfall, 49 Iowa, 328 ; Cush. 417.
State V. Bohan, 15 Kan. 407. « Com. v. Vass, 3 Leigh, 787; State
* Com. V. V^ss, 3 Leigh, 786 ; Peo- v. Murdy, 81 Iowa, 88 ; People v.
pie V. Bjmberly, 87 Cal. 117; North Brady, 72 Cal. 490; State v. Martin,
10
146 Dl'ING DECLARATIONS. [§ 103.
The (lying declaration is customarily expressed in language,
but this is by no means alwa3's necessary. The declaration
may be by signs, where the dying person is unable to speak; as,
for example, by a pressure of the hand, a nod of the head, or
by pointing to visible objects or pei'sons in response to ques-
tions put to him. Under such circumstances it should be
made to appear by independent evidence that the deceased
was conscious and realized his condition.*
In all cases where the language of the deceased has been
committed to writing and signed by him, or where, if he is
physically unable to sign, a written statement has been read
and assented to b}' him in the presence of attesting witnesses,
the writing should be produced as the best evidence of its
contents.^
When a declaration made by deceased, though committed
to writing, was neither read nor signed by him, its contents
may be shown verbally, though its absence be unaccounted
for.' So where some of the declaration is in writing and some
is not, that which is verbal may be received though the writ-
ing is not produced.* But testimony that the deceased made
contradictory verbal statements will not be received to vary
or qualify a writing signed and verified by him unless the
witness can give the substance of the statements.*
As a general rule, the contradictory ^ or untruthful char-
acter' of the dying declarations constitutes no valid objection
to its admission as evidence, however much it may detract
from the credit to be given to it by the jury. But declara-
30 Wis. 216. Cf. Mattox v. United 573 ; 51 Iowa, 143 ; Darby v. State,
States, 146 U. S. 140. A verification 93 Ala. 9.
under oath, while of great value, does 4Rex v. Reason, 1 Str. 499, 500;
not strengthen it as a dying declara- State v. Schnnidt, 73 Iowa, 469; Peo-
tion ^erse. State v. Frazier, 1 Houst. pie v. Glenn, 10 Cal. 33; Kreba v.
(Del.) 176 ; Turner v. State, 89 Tenn. State, 8 Tex. App. 1 ; Com. v. Haney,
297. 137 Mass. 455.
1 Com. V. Casey, 11 Cush. (Mass.) ^Snell v. State, 29 Tex. App. 296;
417; People v. Shaw, 03 N. Y. 40. 15 S. W. Eep. 733; State v. Schmidt
2 King V. State, 91 Tenn. 617 ; Pec- 73 Iowa, 469 ; State v. Mathes, 90 Mo.
pie V. Callaghan, 4 Utah, 49 ; Drake 571.
V. State, 23 Tex. App. 293. But cf. 6 Richards v. State, 83 Wis. 173; 51
contra, State v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308 ; N. W. Rep. 653. •
State V. Wilson, 111 N. C. 695. 7 White v. State, 30 Tex. App. 653;
estate V. S alii van, 50 N. W. Rep. 18 S. W. Rep. 463.
§ 103.] DYING DEOLAEATIONS. 147
tions made by the deceased which contradict his dying decla-
rations are admissible to impeach the latter, though they are
not made under a sense of impending death.*
The witness called to prove the declaration is not under the
necessity of repeating its exact language provided he can give
the substance of all statements in a connected and complete'
forila.^
1 Morelock v. State, 90 Tenn. 528. v. People, 17 111. 17 ; Montgomery v.
2 People V. Chin Mock, 51 Cal. 597 ; State, 11 Ohio, 424 ; Mattox v. United
Roberts v. State, 5 Tex. App. 141 ; States, 146 U. a 140.
McLean v. State, 10 AK 672 ; Stark
CHAPTEE VIII.
ANCIENT DOCUMENTS.
105. Definition.
106. Documents must come from
proper custody.
§ 107. Execution need not be proved,
108. Extent of corroboration re-
quired.
§ 105. Definition.— Another class of exceptions to the
rule rejecting hearsay evidence comprises those cases in which
a claim to possession is sought to be substantiated by the pro-
duction in evidence of what are termed ancient documents}
To constitute an ancient document, the deed, record or other
written instrument must be at least thirty years old when
offered in evidence,^ and, while it is by no means necessary
that the documents should, ia strictness of language, be shown
to form a part of the res gestm, these instruments are generally
connected collaterally with spme of the facts which are in
issue. The law raises a very strong presumption in favor of
the authenticity and genuineness of such documents, and even
when these characteristics are impeached by affidavits which
assert the fraudulent nature of their contents or that the docu-
ment is a forgery, it is held that the party offering the ancient
document is not under the necessity of disproving the charge.'
ilGreenl. on Evid., §141.
2Mapes V. Leal, 37 Tex. 345; Whit-
man V. Henneberry, 73 111. 109 ; Mc-
Gennis v. Allison, 10 S. & R (Pa.)
197. It is not enough that the docu-
ment purports to be over thirty years
old. Fairly v. Fairly, 38 Miss. 280 ;
Whitman v. Henneberry, supra. In
the case of a will the thirty years
would in America be counted from
the death of the testator. Jackson v.
Blanshan, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 298 ; Gard-
ner V. Granuis, 57 Ga. 539 ; Jackson
V. Luquere, 5 Cow. 331, 334 ; Hewlett
V. Cook, 7 Wend. 374. But the Eng-
lish courts reckon from the date of
the will. Doe v. Deakin, 3 Carr. & P.
403.
5 Winn V. Patterson, 9 Pet 675;
MoWhirter v. Allen, 1 Tex. Civ. App.
649; Williams v. Conger, 125 U. S.
397; Settle v. Alison, 8 Ga. 301;
Parker v. Chancellor, 11 S. W. Eep.
503; 78 Tex. 475; Stribling v. Atkin-
son, 79 Tex. 162 ; Bennett v. Runyon,
4 Dana, 433; Norton v. Conner, 14
S. W. Rep. 193; Northrop v. Wright,
■24 Wend. 321. Contra, Parker v.
Waycross, etc. Co., 81 Ga. 387. Of.
Almy V. Church (R. I., 1893), 26 Atl.
Rep, 58.
§ 106.] ANCIENT DOODMENTSw 149
§ 106. Documents must come from proper custody. — In
the case of an ancient conveyance produced to substantiate
the claim of one in possession, the fact of a long, continuous
and uninterrupted seizin by the claimant is often a very ma-
terial circuiilstance' in rebutting any presumption or suspicion
which may arise that the instrument was fabricated. The
fact that the deed has always been in the possession of the
party claiming under it does not militate against its recep-
tion.
In all cases, however, where ancient documents are offered
as proof, it is required as prima facie evidence of their gen-
uineness that they shall be produced from the proper custody.'
In no case is it necessar\'^ that the custody in which the docu-
ment has been found should be the best, safest and most
proper repository. Of course, where such is shown to be the
case, all trace of suspicion as to their genuineness is removed.'
When, however, documents are produced and it is shown'
that they have been in the hands of those who from the cir-
cumstances of the case it was reasonable and probable to sup-
pose would naturally have had charge of them, then the
requirements of the law have been complied with, even though
a safer place of custody might have been found.* In other
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 141 ; King v. Conger, 125 U. S. 417. Contra, Har-
Merrill, 34 N. W. Rep. 689 ; Smith v. ris v. Hoskins, 33 S. W. Rep. 251.
Swan (Tex., 1893), 32 S. W. Rep. 247 ; 3 As in the case of a military pay-
Wilson V. Simpson, 16 S. W. Rep. 40 ; roll found in the custody of the sec-
80 Tex. 279. See § 108. Where the retary of war. Bell v. Brewster, 10
authenticity of an ancient deed is N. E. Rep. 679. See, also. Whitman
free from suspicion, the courts follow v. Henneberry, 73 111. 109 ; United
a liberal rule as to their admission. States v. Castro, 24 How. 346 ; King
Doe T. Keeling, 11 Q. B. 884. v. Little, 1 Cash. (Mass.) 436 ; Jack
2Doe V. Roe, 31 Ga. 593; Goodwin v. Blanshan, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 293.
T. Jack, 63 Me. 414 ; Carter v. Chan- The question whether a deed comes
dron, 21 Ala. 73 ; Weitnian v. Jhiot, from proper custods' is for the judge.
64 Ga. 11 ; Bell v. Brewster, 44 Ohio Rees v. Walters, 3 M. & W. 537, 531.
St 694 ; Hedger v. Ward, 15 B. Mon. But where an ancient deed is ad-
(Ky.) 106 ; Tolman v. Emerson, 4 mitted in evidence against the objec-
Pick. (Mass.) 160 ; Duncan v. Beard, tion of the grantor, who denies its
3 Nott & McCord (S. C), 400 ; King execution, its genuineness is for the
V. Sears (Ga., 1893), 18 S. E. Rep. 830 ; jury. Stooksberry v. Swan (Tex.,
Applegate v. Lexington, etc. Mining 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 694.
Ca, 117 U. S. 368; Williams v. < Bishop of Meath v. Marquess of
Winchester, 3 Bing. N. G 188.
150 ANCIENT DOCUMENTS. [§ 107.
words, the proper repository or custody for an ancient docu-
ment is the place where papers of its kind are usually depos-
ited.i Thus, in the case of deeds conveying interests in real
property", the proper because usual custodian is the grantee of
the deed or those claiming under him by force of its opera-
tion.^ So the lessor is the proper custodian of an expired lease ; '
and in regard to any document the question of what is its
proper custody is one of law and exclusively for the consider-
ation of the judge.'
§ 107. Execution need not Ibe proved. — It is never required
to prove ancient documents. It is a conclusive presumption
arising from lapse of time that the witnesses together with
those who might identify their writing are dead.^ The wit-
nesses need not be called,' even though living within the ju-
risdiction' or in the court.' Slight irregularities appearing
on the face of such documents will be disregarded.' The ex-
istence of a power of attorney,'" of capacity in the grantor,"
or the authenticity of a seal attached to the writing,'^ will be
presumed. But a copy of an ancient document, even though
over fifty years old, is not admissible, unless the execution of
the original is proved ; '' nor can a sheriff's deed be considered
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 142, citing Atl. Rep. 497 ; Grain v. Huntington,
Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat 213, 221; 81 Tex. 614; Von Rosenberg v.
Winn V. Patterson, 9 Pet. 663 ; Jack- Haynes (Tex., 1892), 20 S. W. Rep.
son V. Laroway. 3 Johns. 383 ; Hew- 143 ; Northrop v. Wright, 24 Wend,
lett V. Cock, 7 Wend. 371. 374; Tol- 221 ; McClaskey v. Barr, 47 Fed. Rep.
man v. Emerson, 4 Pick. 160 ; Duncan 154 ; Parker v. Chancellor, 73 Tex.
V. Beard, 2 Nott & McC. 400 ; Sliinu 475 ; Ruby v. Van Valkenberg„ 72 id.
V. Hicks, 68 Tex. 277; Bell v. Brews- 459.
ter, 44 Ohio St. 690 ; Brown v. Simp- 6 Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat 213.
sou's Heirs, 67 Tex. 225; Almy v. 'Jackson v. Christman, 4 Wend.
Church (R. 1, 1893), 26 Atl. Rep. 58. (N. Y.) 277.
Cf. Harris v. Hoskins (Tex., 1893), 22 8 Marsh v. Colnett, 2 Esp. 665.
S. W. Rep. 251. ' 9 Johnson v. Timmons, 50 Tex. 521 ;
2 Parker v. Chancellor, 73 Tex. 475. Hogan v. Corinth, 19 Fla. 84.
The proper custodian of a deed of a '"Storey v. Flanagan, 57 Tex. 649;
land certificate is the person who Lum v. Scarborough (Tex., 1893), 24
filed the certificate. Masterson v. S. W. Rep. 846 ; Doe v. Campbell, 10
Todd (Tex., 1893), 24 S. W. Rep. 682. Johns. (N. Y.) 475.
» Doe V. Keeling, 36 Leg. Obs. 312. " Rex v. Inhabitants, 1 B. & C. 573.
4 Rees V. Walters, 3 M. & W. 527. 12 Hooper v. W. W. Co., 37 Hnn, 568.
liWinn V. Patterson, 9 Pet 675; isgohunior v. Russell, 88 Tex. 83;.
Havens v. Sea Shore Railroad, 20 18 S. W. Rep. 484.
§ 108.] - AKCIENT DOCUMENTS. 151
an ancient document which does not recite the court or
county in which it was issued.* So, also, an unrecorded deed
showing neither the place of its execution nor the fact of its
deliver}'^ will be rejected unless its due execution is proved.^
§108. Extent of corroboration required. — Some uncer-
tainty at one period existed as to the necessity for the intro-
duction of evidence tending to show acts done in reference to
the documents offered in evidence. Where a deed or other
document is extremely old, to require evidence of an act done
contemporaneously with its execution as a necessary prelim-
inary to its reception as evidence would, be often tantamount
to rejecting it.' If, as is conceivable, the writing is dated
post litem rxotam, a suspicion will thereby be cact upon its genu-
ineness and impartiality which will cause the court to demand
evidence of co-existing facts to dissipate.* So where evidence
of comparatively recent facts which have occurred subsequent
to the execution of the document is demanded, no objection
can with fairness be made. Thus, if the document be a deed,
produced by the grantee who claims under it, and it is stated
by him to have been in his possession for a period of time
sufficient to give it the character of an ancient document, he
will ordinarily be required to give evidence showing his en-
joyment of the property conveyed therein, or some other
competent facts sufficiently corroborative. So it was at one
time held that in such a case proof of possession in corrobora-
1 French v. McGinnis, 69 Tex. 19. strangers they are of such character
See as to administrator's deed, Fell as usually accompanies transEers of
V. Young, 63 111. 106. title or acts of possession and pur-
2 Long V. Georgia, etc. Co., 82 Ga,
628. See Boyle v. Chambers, 32 Mo.
46; Smith v. Rantin, 20 111. 14
Fogal V. Perio, 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) 100
Clark V. Owens, 18 N. Y. 434
port to form a part of actual trans-
actions referring to co-existing sub-
jects by which their truth can be
tested, and there is deemed to be a
presumption that they are not fab-
Coulson V. Walton, 9 Pet. 62, where ricated. But platting for plans and
proof of ancient documents was re- field-notes are memoranda, only,
quired. which may never have been acted
' Bristow V. Corraican, L. R 3 App. upon." Boston Water-Power Co. v.
Gas. 641. Cf. Gardner v. Granis, 57 Hanlon, 132 Mass. 484.
Ga. 539. "The evidence of such an- * 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 143; United
cient documents is admitted upon States v. Castro, 24 How. 346,
the ground that although between
152
ANCIENT DOCUMENTS.
[§ 108.
tion of the deed was indispensable.' On the other hand, it has
been repeatedly held that the genuineness of a deed purport-
ing to be an ancient document, if coming from proper custody,
may be established by proof of circumstances other than pos-
session or acts of ownership under it.^ Thus, a certificate of
registration of an ancient deed being itself more than thirty
years old is admissible as evidence of the antiquity and gen-
uineness of the deed itself.'
Where proof of possession is required it has been held in
some cases that thirty years' possession was necessary,* while
other cases hold that possession for any particular period need
not be shown.' So it seems that possession of part of the
premises is enough," and the document may be admitted in
evidence without prior proof of possession.'
' Jackson v. Laroway, 3 Johns. Gas.
283 ; Jackson v. Blanshan, 3 Johns.
393, 398. See Gardner v. Granais,
57 Ga. 539 ; Thurston v. Mastersou, 9
Dana (Ky.), 385 ; Nixon v. Porter, 34
Miss. 697 ; Homer v. Cilley, 14 N. H.
85; MoGennis v. Allison, 10 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 197 ; Thompson v. Bullock, 1
Bay (S. G.), 364 ; Bank of Middlebury
V. Rutland, 33 Vt. 414 ; Dishazer v.
Maitland, 18 Leigh (Va.), 534
2 Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 313 ; Wil-
aon V. Betts, 4 Denio, 301 ; Jackson v.
tiuquere, 5 Gow. 231 ; Hewlett v. Gock,
7 Wend. 371 ; Kenerson v. Henry, 101
Mass. 152 ; Jackson v. Lamb, 7 Cowen,
431 ; Prigden v. Green (Ga., 1888), 7 S.
E. Rep. 97 ; Lawrence v. Tennant, 64
N. H. 533 ; AmmoHs v. Dwyer, 78 Tex.
639; Parker v. Ghancellor, 73 Tex.
475; Ruby v. Van Valkenburg. 73
Tex. 450 ; Com. v. Heffron, 102 Mass.
161; Fulkerson v. Holmes, 117 U. S.
389 ; Applegate v. Mining Co., 117 id.
255; Nowliu v. Bm-well, 75 Va. 551;
Ensign v. McKinney, 30 Hun (N. Y.),
249; Harlan v. Howard, 79 Ky. 373;
Whitman v. Henneberry, 73 111. 109 ;
Brown v. Wood, 6 Rich. (S. C.) Eq.
155; Williams v. Hardee (Tex., 1893),
31 S. W. Rep. 367.
' Prigden v. Green, supra. In Bris-
tow V. Corniican, L. R. 3 App; Gas.
641, Blackburn, J., said : " Inasmuch
as, after a long time, all the witnesses
who could prove such possession are
dead, the law permits ancient docu-
ments, either with or without evi-
dence of ancient payment of rent, to
be given as evidence, from which the
jury may properly draw an inference
that there was such possession. For,
in the ordinary course of things, men
do not make leases unless they acton
them, and lessees do not, in general,
pay rent unless they are in possession,
eo that ancient payment of rent adds
weight to the ancient indenture."
4Nowlin V. Burwell, 75 Va. 551;
Jackson v. Blanshan, 8 John. ?93, 398 ;
Shaler v. Brand, 6 Binn. 439.
5 Bank v. Rutland, 33 Vt 414;
Nixon V. Porter, 34 Miss. 697 ; Wald-
ron V. Tuttle, 4 N. H. 371 ; Ridgely v.
Johnson, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 527.
" Jackson v. Luquere, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
331.
" Hoopes V. Burgin W. W. Co., 37
Hun, 568; Burgin v. Chenault, 9B.
Mon. (Ky.) 285; Shaler v. Brand, 6
Binn, (Pa.) 435.
CHAPTEE IX.
GENERAL REPUTATION.
§ 110. Adequate knowledge of de-
' clarant.
111. Identity of declarant.
113. Death of declarant
113. Date of the declaration.
§ 114. Evidence of reputation in the
case of private rights.
115. Traditionary evidence regard-
ing private boundaries.
116. Documents showing general
reputation.
§ 110. Public and general reputation — Adequate knowl-
edge of declarant. — By reputation is meant what a com-
munity thinks, believes or says, a-nd not merely the declara-
tion of a single person as to a particular fact not of a public
nature.' As regards subjects or rights which are of general
or public interest, and which, therefore, concern all or a con-
siderable portion of the community, evidence of declarations
constituting general reputation and tending to show how such
matters were regarded by those who were most interested is
admissible as an exception to the rule rejecting hearsay. If
the matter concerned all the citizens, as, for example, the ded-
ication of a public highway and its enjoyment and use b^''
the inhabitants of a town,^ or the exercise of some franchise
by a public corporation or official, it is a presumption that,
such things being the theme of interested and widespread dis-
cussion, the utterances of persons who are necessarily in-
terested in public matters must be reliable and true.
But the admissibility of hearsay evidence of general repu-
tation is limited by the consideration of the question whether
the person whose language is quoted was in a position to pos-
sess and did actually have sufficient knowledge. Thus, if it
be a matter of public cognizance affecting a large class of
persons, the declarations of any of them, no matter how
scattered the class may be, are admissible. A distinction is
1 Anderson's Law Diet, citing Hun-
nicutt V. Peyton, 103 U. S. 363.
2 Albert v. Gulf, etc. Co. (Tex.,
1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 779; Crease v.
Barrett, 1 G, M. & R. 919 ; Lawrence
V. Tennant, 64 N. H. 583.
154 GENEEAL EEPUTATION. [§ 110.
drawn, however, by the adjudged oases and by the authori-
ties upon this subject between public rights or customs and
general rights or customs. A public right is a right which is
common to all the citizens of a state or of any large govern-
mental division, while a general right is one which is common
to a considerable though limited number of persons ; as, for
example, to the residents of a parish, township or similar cip-
cumscribed district.'
In the case of public rights, declarations showing reputa-
tions, made by persons deceased, are deemed competent with-
out preliminary proof that the party had full knowledge of
the matter involved.^ But declarations concerning general
rights known only among a relatively small number of per-
sons are not admissible unless it is shown that the party had
competent means of knowledge.
On the other hand, the declarations of persons as to gen-
eral reputation who have resided in a circumscribed district
will not be rejected on that account if it can be shown that
the matter upon which they have a bearing was such that
those persons would have been likel}'^ to possess adequate
knowledge.^ In the latter case, however, evidence of reputa-
tion current elsewhere than the locality in question would
not be received.''
It is not necessary that the main fact in issue should be of a
public or general nature. Though the litigation turn upon a
private right, evidence of public reputation is admissible to
show some public and general right ou-t of which it sprang or
with which it may be connected.'
'Stephen's Digest, art 30;- 1 v. "White, 19 Conn. 250; Dunbar v.
Greenl. on Evid., g 138; Weeks v. Mulvy, 8 GVay, 163; People v. Vel-
Sparks, 1 M. & S. 686, 690. larde, 59 Gal. 457 ; .Hodges v. Hodgea,
^Freeman V.Phillips, 4 M.&S.4S6. 11 S. E. Rep. 364; 106 N. C. 374;
3 MuUaney v. Duffy (111., 1893), 33 Young v. Kansas City, F. S. & M. R.
N. E. Eep. 250 ; Green v. Mumper, Co., 89 Mo. App. 59.
138 111. 434; Huunicutt v. Peyton, « Young v. Kansas City, etc. Co., 89
103 U. S. 333 ; Wood v. Fiske, 63 Mo. App. 53 ; Weeks v. Sparke, 1 M.
N. H. 173 ; Dugger v. McKesson, 100 & S. 679 ; Sanscrainte v. Torongo, 87
N. C. 1 ; Milford v. Powner, 136 Ind. Mich. 69 ; Butrick v. Tilton, 155 Mass.
538 ; State v. Best, 13 S. E. Rep. 907 : 461 ; 29 N. E. Rep. 1088 ; Backdahl v.
Taylor V. Glenn, 29 S. C. 393. Grand Lodge, 48 N. W. Rep. 454;
n Greenl. on Evid., g 138; Noyes Tucker v. Smith, 3 S. W. Rep. 671;
§§ 111-113;] GENERAL EEPUTATION. 155
§ 111. Identity of informant or declarant. — A witness
who is permitted to testify to statements made by a person
deceased upon the ground that such utterance was evidence
of general reputation will not be required to give the name
of his informant.^ Nor is such a declaration rejected though
the witness' informant, had he been living, would not have
been a competent witness because of interest. The fact that
the deceased was in a position to have a full knowledge of the
subject and that at the date of making his declaration he was
seemingly impartial being the sole grounds for the admission
of his declaration renders it unnecessary to consider his other
characteristics or qualifications.^
§ 112. Death of declarant. — But it is also a rule that the de-
clarant should be dead or should be supposed to be so at the
time of trial. If such is not the case, evidence of reputation will
be rejected and his oral testimony will be required as original
evidence in conformity with the doctrine that hearsay evi-
dence is never received when original evidence can be ob-
tained.' It was at one time held, when title to real property
was in dispute, that evidence of general reputation was only
admissible in case the party could show actual enjoyment of
the property prior to its reception.* Such, however, is not
now the law, though evidence of enjoyment would have great
corroborative force.*
§ 113. Date of the declarations ante litem motam. — In
considering the admissibility of such declarations as evidence
of common or general reputation, the date at which the dec-
larations were made must be considered. As common report is
only admitted as evidence in matters which concern the pub-
lic, it is valueless where it is infected with bias or partial-
ity because the declarant's "mind does not stand in an even
position without any temptation to exceed or fall short of the
Lord Dunraven v. Lewellyn, 15 Q. Tucker v. Smith, 68 Tex. 473 ; 3S.W.
B. 785 ; Warrick v. Queen's College, Eep. 671.
40 L. J. C. 785. * Moorewood v. Wood, 14 East, 330.
iMosely V. Davis, 11 Price, 163. sCurson v. Lomax, 5 Esq. 90;
21 Greenl. on Evid., § 135. Steele v. Prickett, 2 Stark. 463, 466.
'Lawrence v. Tennant, 64 N. H. See, also, cases cited under §§ 115 and
533 ; Hodges v. Hodges, 106 N. C. 374 ; 1 16.
156 GENERAL EBPUTATION. [§ 113.
truth." ' If, therefore, the matter upon which evidence of
reputation is sought has heconie the subject of a general or
public controversy, so that men, having begun to arrange
themselves upon different sides, have thus acquired distorted
views and have allowed the knowledge which they possess to
be biased by passion or prejudice, their declarations will be
no longer admissible as reputation. Hence, all declarations
made before the suit but since the commencement of the
controversy, that is, since that " state of facts has arisen upon
which the claim in issue is based," are excluded.^
The controversy which will render the declarations inad-
missible must be precisely the same as that before the court.
The general discussion of allied or collateral controverted
subjects, so long as the point litigated was not then in dispute,
will not bring about the rejection of evidence of general rep-
utation, for here the point which is on trial cannot be said to
have been in controversy at all.' The fact that the declarant
was wholly unaware of the existence of any controversy is
not enough to render admissible his utterances made subse-
quent to its inception. He might have known of it, and, as
he is always absent and usually dead when the matter is under
judicial consideration, it is practically impossible to prove
either that he did or did not. It is therefore fair to presume
that, the controversy being upon a subject of general interest,
the declarant was informed as to its existence, and that his
mind was not uninfluenced by it.*
If the declarations as dated are ante litem motam, they will
not be inadmissible because made expressly to prevent a con-
troversy,* or directly in support of the title or right of the
declarant,Hhough this fact may be considered as bearing upon
credibility. JSTeither is the fact that the declarant stood or
1 Whitelooke v. Baker, 13 Ves. 514, 7 Scott N. R. 314 ; Donohue v. Whit-
per Lord Eldon. ney, 15 N. Y. S. 632.
2Hodges V. Hodges, 106 N. C. 374; spreemaQ v. Phillips, 4 M. & S.
Berkley Peerage Case, 4 Campb. 404 ; 486, 497 ; Stephen's Dig., art, 3.
Rex V. Cotton, 3 Campb. 444, 446 ; 11 Gi'eenl. on Evid., § 133.
Partridge v. Russell, 3 N. Y. S. 529 ; 5 Goodright v. Mass, 2 Cowp. 591 ;
50 Hun, 601 ; Richards v. Bassett, 10 Monkton v. Attorney-Geneial, 2 R &
B. & C. 657; Butler v. Mountgarret, M. 147, 160, 164; Slaney v. Wade, 1
7 H. L. Cas. 633 ; Da vies v. LowndeB, M. & C. 338.
6 Doe V. Davis, 10 Q. B. 314, 325.
§ 114.] GENERAL EEPDTATION. 157
believed that he stood in, pari jure with the party introducing
the declaration enough to render it inadmissible;' for the fact
that ho was in pari casu with the party would furnish him
with an excellent opportunity, of acquiring adequate knowl-
edge, while it would hardly prejudice him in a party's favor
prior to the existence of any actual controversy.
§ 111. Evidence of reputation in case of private rights. —
The possession, of competent knowledge by the informant of
the witness being essential to the admissibility of evidence of
reputation, it follows that, as to matters wholly private, evi-
dence of reputation is rejected upon the presumption that he
did not possess such knowledge, coupled with the impossibility
of showing affirmatively that he did possess it. To permit
or require proof that a person long since deceased, whose very
name has been perhaps forgotten or is unknown, was prob-
ably informed concerning a subject-matter which related to
one individual alone, would open the door to fraud and per-
jury, and cast doubt and suspicion upon all testimony of this
sort. The main question in issue may be one of purely private
right.^ But the question must have possessed such a public
or quasi-public interest as to have been the subject of discus-
sion by a portion of the public, however limited.
Publicity is largely relative, and matters which in one sec-
tion of the community are the subject of continual public dis-
cussion would elsewhere be disregarded by all except those
directly concerned. In populous cities the discussion of purely
private affairs is not carried on to such an extent as in sparsely
settled communities, where a dearth of incident renders any
event, however private and trivial, the subject of general if
not public discussion. These well-recognized facts should be
1 Taylor, Ev. 665, 566 ; Deade v. EUia v. State (Tex., 1893), 24 S. W.
Hancock, 13 Price, 236, 237; Free- Rep. 894; Molyneux v. Collier, 13
man v. Phillips, 4 M. & S. 486, 491 : Ga. 406. Cf. Angell v. Rosenburg.
Nichols V. Parker, 14 East, 381 ; Doe 12 Mich. 241 : Bank v. Rutland, 23
V. Tarver, Ry. & M. 141, 143. Vt. 414 ; Walker v. Moors, 122 Mass.
2 It is for this reason that a per- 501. So evidence of a general re-
son's insolvency or insanity, being a port that a person has changed his
private matter, cannot bs proven residence is not admissible under the
by evidence of general reputation, rule admitting reputation. Ferguson
Walker v. Forbes, 25 Ala. 189; v. Wright (N. C, 1894), 18 S. K Rep^
Vaug^han v. Warnell, 26 Tex. U7; 691.
158 GENERAL EEPUTATION. [§ 115.
borne in mind when evidence of reputation of matters seem-
ingly private is admitted. In all such cases it will be found
that the subject, by reason of surrounding circumstances, pos-
sessed at least a quasi-pubWo character and was naturally the
subject of discussion by those in the neighborhood.'
It is sometimes said that the marriage of parties competent
to enter into the marriage contract may be inferred or proved
by the reputation of marriage. It is perhaps more correct to
say that reputation is an incident from which, in conjunction
with cohabitation, a valid marriage may be presumed to ex-
ist. In any case the reputation of marriage should be gen-
eral among the acquaintances and relatives of the parties."''
§ 115. Traditiouary evidence regarding private bound-
aries.— The rule is well established that at common law evi-
dence of general reputation is not admissible in matters of
private right or interest. Hence, though the boundary lines
betweeii public territorial divisions, however small, can be
shown by such evidence, it is not permissible to do so in the case
of boundaries between the adjacent lands of private owners,
unless the private boundary is identical with a public bound-
ary.'
1 Jennings v. Bank, 8 Mich. 181 ; refers. It is not enough that an
Curtis v. Aaronson, 49 N. J. L. 68 ; opinion may exist that they ought to
Reed v. State, 16 Ark. 499 ; Russell be married from their intimacy ; it is
V. Stockton, 8 Conn. 236; Adams v. thebeUef that they are married which
State, 25 Ohio St 584 ; Richards v. constitutes the reputation of it Their
Bassett, 10 B. & C. 657 ; Green v. acts should be inconsistent with any
Mumper, 138 111. 434 ; Price v. Little- other inference than that of mar-
wood, 3 Camp. 388 ; White v. Lisle, riage to justify the repute of it, and
4 Madd. 214; Bryan v. Walton, 20 this repute should be credited by their
Ga. 480 ; Hard v. Brown, 18 Vt 87 ; relatives, neighbors, friends and ao-
EUiott V. Pearl, 10 Pet 412. quaintances." Brinckle v. Brinckle,
2 "Reputation is an incident from 34 Leg. Int 438. See, also, Arthur v.
which, being joined to cohabitation, Broadnax, 3 Ala. 375 ; White v. White,
the married relation may be inferred. 82 Cal. 427 : 23 Pac. Rep. 376 ; In re
It is essential, however, that the Wallace's Kstate, 25 Atl. Rep. 260;
reputation of marriage be general. 49 N. J. Eq. 530.
The conduct of the parties must be ' Curtis v. Aaronson, 7 Atl. Eep.
such as to make almost every one 886 ; 49 N. J. L. 68 ; Thomas v. Jen-
infer that they were married. It is kins, 1 N. & P. 588 ; Doe v. Thomas,
the reputation arising from holding 14 East, 333 ; Weeks v. Sparke,
themselves out to the world as occu- 1 M, & S. 688 ; Dunraven v. Llewellyn,
pying that relation to which the law 15 Q. B, 791 ; 15 Ad. & EL 791 ; Taylor
§ 115.] GENEEAL EBPUTATION. 159
In the United States some exceptions to this doctrine have
occurred. It has been held in many states that evidence of
declarations tending to show common reputation is admissible
in the case of private boundaries irrespective of the fact that
the}' do not coincide with boundaries of a public nature.'
The origin of this doctrine is to be accounted for by the mode
in which the government, whether state or federal, or other
original proprietor of the land caused it to be surveyed and
divided ' preparatory to its conveyance to those who subse-
quently cultivated it.
In the West particularly, the public domain was by act of
congress surveyed and divided into townships, sections and
subdivisions of sections, and in making conveyances of the
lands to private individuals reference was made to these quasi-
public boundary lines.
So in the East the large domains granted by the crown had
been subdivided by surveyors into numerous small farms by in-
tersecting lines extending from one boundary of the tract to
the other.
Thus in both classes of cases it happened that lines of a public
or quasi-'^whWc nature have become absolutely identical with
private boundary lines, so that the exception to the rule of the
English common law is more apparent than real.
It has been held in many cases where private and public
V. Roe, 4 Hawks, 116 ; Ralston v. Wooster, 15 id. 412 ; Taylor v. Judd,
Miller, 3 Rand. (Va.) 44; Morris v. 63 id. 288; Wen tman v. Haywood, 77
Callanan, 10.5 Mass. 129; Drury v. Tex. 557; Dugger v. McKesson, 100
Midland R R. Co., 127 id. 571 ; Mul- N. C. 1 ; 6 S. E. Rep. 746 ; Arneson v.
lauey v. Duffy (III., 1893), 33 N. E. Spann (S. D., 1892), 49 N. W. Rep.
Rep. 250 ; Arnson v. Spawn (S. D., 1066 ; Harris v. Oakley, 130 N. Y. 1 :
1892), 49 N. W. Rep. 1066 ; Green v. Smith v. Powers, 15 N. H. 546 ; Lay
Mumper, 138 111. 434; 28 N. E. Rep. v. Neville, 25 Cal. 515; Austin v.
1075. Andrews, 71 Cal. 98 ; Smith v. Shack-
1 Boardman v. Reed, 6 Pet. 328 ; elford, 9 Dana, 452 ; McCoy v. Gallo-
Donohue v. Whitney, 15 N. Y. S. 632 ; way, 3 Ohio, 283 ; Rirtridge v. Russell,
Com. V. Penn., 1 Pet. C. C. 496 ; Sasser 2 N. Y. S. 529 ; Nixon v. Porter, 34
V. Herring, 3 Dev. (N. C.) 340 ; Woos- Miss. 697 ; Yates v. Shaw, 24 111. 367
ter V. Butler, 13 Conn. 309; Stetson Roberts v. Preston, ICO N. C. 248
V. Freem. n, 35 Kan. 523; Spear v. Stroud v. Springfield, 28 Tex. 649
Coate, 3 McCord (S. C), 227; Jackson Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U. S. 333
v. McCall, 10 Johns. 377; Wood v. Abert v. Van Gelder, 33 N.'Y. 513.
Fiske, 63 N. H. 173 ; Great Falls v.
160 GENERAL EEPUTATION. [§116.
boundaries were not coincident that declarations of deceased
persons were admissible to show private boundaries, even
where they are not declarations against interest or in dispar-
agement of the title of the declarant.' So the declarations of
a deceased or absent surveyor in the form of maps, surveys
or plats are received to explain ambiguous' or doubtful con-
veyances, particularly when they are referred to therein.'
Usuallv, however, it is said that the declarations must have
been made by some one in possession of the land as owner
at the time, though they need not then be against interest
when they will be admissible as part of the res gestae? But
the declarations of third persons not against interest who
have competent knowledge, made on the land, but which do
not range themselves under either of the above heads, will be
received. Thus, a verbal statement of a deceased surveyor
who had no interest in the land, but who may have surveyed
it, will be received, though such evidence can hardly be called
general reputation.*
§ 116. Writings showing general reputation.— Fot only
are verbal statements of deceased persons received as evidence
of general reputation, but written instruments such as maps
1 Whitman v. Haywood, 77 Tex. < Child v. Kingsbury, 46 Vt 47;
557; Daggett V. Shaw, 5 Met. (Mass.) Hadley v. Howe, 46 Vt. 113; Mc-
233 ; Curtiss v. Aaronson, 49 N. J. L. Causland v. Fleming, 63 Pa. St. 36 ;
68 ; Adams V. Swansea, 116 Mass. 591 ; Hurt v. Evans, 49 Tex. 311 ; Donohue
Sharp V. Blankenship, 79 Cal. 411 ; v. Whitney, 15 N. Y. S. 622. In Hun-
Fellows V. Smith, 130 Mass. 378; nicutt t. Peyton, 103 U. S. 333, the
Lawrence v. Tennant, 64 N. H. 533. court says : " In questions of private
Contra, Titterington v. Trees, 78 Tex. boundaries, declarations of particular
567; Taylor v. Glenn, 29 S. C. 392. facta as distinguished from reputa-
2 Curtiss v. Aaronson, 49 N. J. L. tion ai-e not admissible unless made
68; 7 Atl. Rep. 886; Davidson v. by persons who had knowledge of
Arledge, 97 N. C. 173 ; Coles v. Yorks, that whereof they spoke and who
36 Mipn. 388: 31 N. W. Rep. 353. were on the land or in possession of
3 Roberts v. Medbury, 133 Mass. it when the declarations were made ;
200 ; Fowler v. Stimpson, 79 Tex. and these to be evidence must have
611; Wood v. Fiske, 63 N. H. 173; been made while the declarant was
Royal V. Cliandler, 87 Me. 119: 21 pomting out or making the bound-
Atl. Rep. 843 ; Brown v. Kenyon, 108 aries or discharging some duty re-
Ind. 284; Harris v. Oakley, 130 N. Y. lating thereto." Cf. Royal v. Chand-
1; Curtiss v. Aaronson, 49 N. J. L. ler, 83 Me. 151; 21 Atl. Rep. 843;
75; Austin v. Andrews, 77 Cal. 98; Titterington v. Trees, 78 Tex. 567.
16 Pac. Rep. 546; Whitman v. Haj'-
wood, 77 Tex. 557.
§ 116.]
GENEKAL KErtJTATION.
161
prepared by deceased persons/ deeds and leases,^ decrees and
orders of court,' and similar evidential instruments'* are re-
ceived under the rules and limitations considered in the pre-
ceding sections as applicable to this class of exceptions.' It is
immaterial that the documents are private if the subject-
matter to which they testify is one calculated to have inter-
ested all or any considerable portion of the public, and if it is
probalale that the author of the writing possessed competent
knowledge of the matters which are described therein. Thus,
it is a general rule that maps and plats showing the public or
quasi-pahlic boundary lines, or which tend to prove a dedica-
tion by a private owner of lands to public uses as highways or
parks, are admissible to show the general reputation regard-
ing such matters."
1 See §§ 115, 145 ; Donohue v. Whit-
ney, 15 N. y. S. 632 ; Ayers v. Wat-
son, 137 U. S. 584; 11 S. Ct 201.
zpiaxton V. Dare, 10 B. & C. 17.
3 Duke of Newcastle v. Braxtowe,
4 B. & Ad. 273.
< Crease v. Barrett, 1 C, M. & 'E,
938 ; Clarkson v. Woodhouse, 5 T. E.
412.
5 Taylor v. Cook, 8 Price, 650;
Barnes v. Mawson, 1 M. & S. 77;
Smitli V. Earl Brownlow, L. R. 9 Eq.
241; Beaufort v. Smith, 4 Ex. 450;
Donohue v. Whitney, 15 N. Y. S. 622 ;
Poss V. Hinkel (Cal., 1891), 25 Pac.
Rep. 762.
11
6 Morris v. Callanan, 105 Mass. 129;
Los Angeles, etc. Co. v. Los Angeles
(Cat, 1893), 32 Pac. Rep. 240 ; Noyes
V. White, 9 Conn. 250; Attorney-
General V. Abbott, 154 Mass. 423;
Brown v. Starlc, 83 Cal. 636 ; People
V. Hibernia Sav. Bank, 84 Cal. 634.
Proof of any particular instance
■when the right was exercised is not
required in the case of a public or
private right shown to exist by writ-
ten evidence of common reputation.
Doe V. Sisson, 12 East, 63 ; Beebe v.
Parker, 5 T. R. 26, 32.
CHAPTER X.
STRANGERS' DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST.
§117. Doclarations of third persons
and other declarations dis-
tinguished.
118. Declarations must be against
interest
119. The interest of the declarant
119a. The death of the declarant
§ 119&. The knowledge of the declar-
ant.
119c. Statements of predecessor
against interest, when evi-
dence in behalf of succes-
sor.
§ 117. Declarations of third persons and other declara-
tions distinguished. — The declarations of third persons who
are neither parties to the suit nor in privity with the parties
constitute another exception to the rule rejecting hearsay evi-
dence. To render such declarations admissible and to permit
the production of the declarant as a witness to be dispensed
with three elements must concur. In the first place it m-ust
be shown affirmatively that the declarant cannot be produced
because he is dead, for declarations of this description are not
only hearsay but are secondary evidence as well.
As in the case of declarations constituting evidence of repu-
tation, it must also be shown that the person possessed ade-
quate knowledge or was in such a situation that the possession
of adequate knowledge may be presumed from the circum-
stances. And finally the declarations must have been against
his interest when they were made.
It may be of value to distinguish declarations which are
admissible on the ground just described from those which are
receivable as evidence of reputation and pedigree or as a part
of the res gestcB, on the one hand, and from those which are
receivable because they are admissions, on the other.
The principal basis for the reception of admissions is the
strong presumption of their truth, arising from the fact that
they are declarations against interest, made by a party to the
suit or by some one in privity with him. The declarations
which are under consideration in this chapter resemble ad-
§ 118.] STEANGERS' DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST. " 163
missions in that they are against interest, but they differ from
admissions in that they are admissible not because against the
interest of parties to the suit or persons in privity with them,
but because they are against the interest of strangers, *. e.,
third persons who had no interest in the present subject-
matter and who are not identified in anyway with those who
are parties or privies to it. The persons, who have made these
declarations must have been possessed of adequate knowledge
and must be deceased at the time of the suit, the declarations
in these respects resembling pedigree,' while in the case of
admissions, no such requirements exist, though on the other
hand a joint interest or identity of interest must be shown
prior to the admission of the latter.
The declarations of third parties against interest need not,
though they often do, constitute a pa,rt of the res gestm which
is in litigation, nor need they be such entries as are made in
the course of official or private duty, though it usuallj'' hap-
pens that they often possess such characteristics in common
with the others which render them admissible.
The declarations of third persons against interest usually
consist of written entries made in books of record or account,
and from the circumstances of the case it frequently happens
that such books, aside from any question of competency, are
provable under the rules laid down with respect to ancient
documents. But in most of the cases these book-entries
against interest are wholly or partly admissible on other
grounds, *'. e., as constituting a part of the res gestm and as
made in the course of the performance of private or profes-
sional duty.
§ 118. Declarations mnst Ibe against interest. — In the
first place the declarations must have been against the interest
of the third person at the time they were made.^ Self-interest
prompts all pfersons to exercise a certain degree of care and
attention in the conduct of their own affairs and to acquire a
more or less intimate knowledge of what concerns themselves.
Based upon these considerations, a strong probability exists
that such declarations are true, while, on the other hand, the
1 See § 53. Hosf ord v. Eowe, 41 Minn. 347 ; Bla-
2 Briberg v. Donovan, 23 111. App. ftck v. Miland, 87 Ga. 573.
63; Baitlett v. Patton, 33 W. Va. 71;
104 STEANGEES' DECI-AEATIONS AGAINST INTEREST. [§ 119.
necessity of the case requires their admission, as the only per-
sons who have perhaps the amplest knowledge are long since
deceased.'
The question has been raised whether the declaration is re-
ceivable as evidence of all the facts which are contained in
it or only as evidence of those facts by virtue of which it is
opposed to the pecuniary interest of the person making it.
Thouffh controverted bv the earlier cases, it is now the rule
that the whole declaration or entry may be given in evidence
to show statements independent of and collateral to the main
assertion. So the written receipt of a deceased person is
admissible not only to show that the payment* was made,
which is the fact against his interest, but to show also the time
or place of payment and the person for whose account the
money Was paid.^ But statements of facts collateral to the
fact which constitutes the entry a declaration against interest
are not receivable unless connected with it by reference or
by necessity in order to explain it. The mere fact, that they
were contemporaneously made does not render them admis-
sible.'
§ 119. The interest of the declarant. — The declaration
inust have been opposed to the pecuniary or proprietary in-
terest of the person making it,* and the adverse interest should
be shown by independent evidence or be inferable from the
circumstances of the case itself.^
A declaration is opposed to a person's interest if a part only
1 Bird V. Hueston, 10 Ohio St. 418. < Davis v. Lloyd, 1 C. & K. 376 ;
2 Lamar v. Pearse (Ga., 1893), 17 Bartlett v. Patton, 33 W. Va. Tl.
S. E. Rep. 92 ; Davie v. Humphrej-s, Cf: Thistlethwait V. Thistlethwait,
6 M. & W. 153 ; In re Gracie> Estate 13 Ind. 855.
(Pa., 1893), 27 Atl. Rep. 1083; Marks V. 6 Lamar v. Pearse (Ga., 1893), 17
Lahee, 3 Bing. N. C. 408. Cf. Edward S. E. Rep. 93 ; Higham v. Ridgway,
V. Cook, 4 Esp. 49. 10 East, 109 ; Ivat v. Finch, 1 Taunt
SLiTingston v. Arnoux, 56 N. Y. 141; In re Grade's Estate (Pa., 1893),
507. Cf. Malone v. Gates, 66 Tex. 23, 37 Atl. Rep. 1083. Though the de-
which was an action to recover for clarant may be deceased, and though
the value of a quantity of timber, he may have had competent knowl-
The party who measured the timber edge, his declarations not constituting
being dead, it was held proper to ad- part of the res gestae are inadmissible
mit all his declarations as to the if not against his interest Blalock
manner in which he inade the scale v. Miland, 87 Ga. 573,
or measure used by him.
II 119a-195.] STEANGEES' DEOLAEATIONS AGAINST INTEEE8T. 165
charges him with a liability, or where other portions of the
book or doQument in which it occurs may discharge him from
liability in whole or in part.' So a declaration in the form of
a book entry is admissible where it is the only evidence of
the charge, and even where the same book shows a counter-
balancing or overbalancing entry, so that upon the whole the
declaration or entry does not charge the party and is not
against his interest.^
§ 119a. Death of the declarant. — To render declarations of
third persons against interest admissible against the parties
it must be shown that the declarant is deceased ; ' and it has
also been held in such a case that the deceased person must
have been competent to testify as to the declaration against
his interest if he had been alive at the date of the suit.^ The
earlier decisions, however, support the contrary rule, that the
incompetency of the declarant as a witness, if living, is imma-
terial, basing theiY" reasoning upon the fact that, as the declara-
tion is in its nature an admission or confession, it is very
probably true,' despite the disqualification of the person from
testifying because of interest.
§ 119b. Knowledge of the declarant. — These declarations
of deceased persons against their interest, while differing in
some respects from declarations or entries made in the usual
course of employment, resemble them in this: that they must
have been made by a person who had a good knowledge of
the fg-cts or whose duty and interest it was to have that
Tknowledge.' If the stranger was possessed of competent
knowledge of the transaction, it is immaterial that the entry
does not show that it was made on his personal knowledge.'
1 Stephen's Dig., art. 28. able to testify in court or to have
2 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 151 ; Higham his deposition taken,
y. Ridgway, 10 East, 109; Eowe V. < Heidenheimer v. Johnston, 76
Brenton, 3 Man. & E. 267. Tex. 200 ; 13 S. W. Rep. 46.
3 Bartlett v. Patton, 10 S. E. Rep. 4 ; =1 Greenl. on Evidence, § 153, cit-
33 W. Va. 71 ; Hosford v. Hosford, ing Doe v. Robson, 15 East, 82 ; Mid-
41 Minn. 245; 43 N. W. Rep. 1018; dleton v. Melton, 10 B. & C. 317-;
Linney v. Wood, 66 Tex. 23. In Schenck v. Warner, 37 Barb. 258.
GrifBth v. State (Tex., 1890), 14 S. W. eClapp v. Engledow, 72 Tex. 253;
Rep. 230, it was held that deolara- 10 S. W. Rep. 252 ; Friberg v. Dono-
tions which are admissible because van, 20 111. App. 62.
the declarant is deceased are also ad- ' 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 153, citing
missihle where he is so physically or Crease v. Barrett, 1 Cr., M. & R. 219.
mentally incapacitated that he is un-
166 STEANGEES' DECLAKATIONS AGAINST INTEREST. [§ 119o.
Entries made in the performance of professional or private
duty, such as, for example, indorsements of service or the returns
made on writs by the officials or private persons serving them,
are receivable against the parties to a suit, partly because of
the implied agency which exists between the party against
whom they are introduced and the declarant, but mainly be-
cause the entries form a part of the res gestm, i. e., the fact of
service. Such entries, however, are only available as evidence
so far as they consist of statements of fact which it was the
duty of the person to record, while the entry of a stranger
against his interest is evidence of all facts contained in it
which were actually recorded.
§ 119c. Statements of predecessor against interest, when
evidence in behalf of successor. — The statements of a de-
ceased owner of property in his own favor are never admis-
sible evidence in behalf of those claiming the property by
virtue of a title derived from him,^ except where they are a
part of the res gestm already in evidence,^ or have been ac-
quiesced in by the adverse party or by one in privity with
him.' Neither are statements against interest made by a pred-
ecessor in estate admissible as evidence for his successor after
his' decease.'
In England one exception was made to the rule that no
proprietor can make evidence in favor of his successor in in-
terest. From the very earliest times the book entries of a
deceased rector or vicar were received as evidence far or
against his successor, but onl}^ to show the receipt of tithes or
other money due the church, or similar entries against the in-
terest of the party who made them and which from this cir- '
cumstance were presumed to be true.^
1 Reese v. Murnane, 31 Pac. Eep. But in White v. Chouteau, 10 Barb.
1037 ; 5 Wash. St. 373 ; In re Smith, 308, the declaration of the own«r of
95N. Y. 517; Schmidt v. Packard, 3 1 the goods against interest was re-
N. E.Eep. 944; 132Ind. 398; Blalock ceived in favor of a surety claiming
V. Miland, 87 Ga. 57a under him as against the principal
2 See ante, § 115, " Boundaries." debtor.
3 See §79. 6i Greenl. on Evid., § 155, citing
<Outram v. Morewood, 5 T. R. 133. Short v. Lee, 2 Jao. & W. 477.
CHAPTEE XL
WITNESSES ABSENT OR DISQUALIFIED.
§133.
§ 130. Testimony of missing wit-
nesses.
IM. Witness need not be deceased.
123. Witnesses wlio have become
sick, decrepit or insane.
Cross-examination at former
trial requisite — Identity of
parties.
134. Precise language of witness,
how far necessary.
§ 120. Testimony of missing witnesses. — The main grounds
for the rejection of hearsay evidence are the absence of an
oath and of an opportunity to cross-examine the person who is
the informant of the witness. But if a witness who has given
testimony in a judicial proceeding cannot be produced at a
subsequent trial between the same parties for the same cause
of action, there can be no objection on this ground to receiv-
ing his sworn testimony in the former trial.'
§ 121. Witness need not be deceased. — It was at one time
doubted whether the testimony of a witness in a former pro-
ceeding would be admitted in his absence from a later trial
in case it was not shown that he was dead. So where the
witness had become incompetent merely,^ or interested
JRuch V. Rock Island, 97 U. S.
693; Gastrell v. Phillips, 64 Miss.
474; Costen v. McDowell, 107 N. C.
546; Berg v. McLafferty, 12 Atl.
Rep. 460 ; Lohman v. Stocke, 94 Mo.
673 ; Marshall v. Hancock, 80 Cal. 83 ;
Lewis V. Roulo, 93 Mich. 475 ; Dwyer
V. Bassett, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 513 ; Rey-
nolds V. United States, 98 U. S. 155 ;
Bank of Monroe v. Gilford, 79 Iowa,
300 ; Costiga;n v. Lunt, 137 Mass. 355 ;
Yale V. Comstock, 113 id. 367; Will-
iams V. Willard, 33 Vt. 369 ; Barker
V. Hebbard. 81 Mich. 637; Kendrick
V. State, 10 Humph. 479 ; Harrison v.
Charlton, 42 Iowa, 573. But the evi-
dence, if irrelevant, will not be ad-
in
mitted on the second trial, though,
inadvertently, its incompetency was
not recognized and it was not ob-
jected to at the earlier trial. Petrie
V. Railway Co. (S. C, 1890), 7 S. E.
Rep. 815. The testimony of one of
defendant's witnesses in the former
trial who is absent at the second trial
may be used by the plaintiff in his
own favor (Hudson v. Roos, 76 Mich.
173 ; Stayner v. Joyce, 23 N. E. Rep.
1889), and, if he is present as a wit-
ness, to impeach his credibility.
Johnson v. Clements, 35 Kan. 3764
Nuzum V. State, 88 Ind. 599.
2 Lee, Adm'r, v. Hill, 87 Va. 497.
8 Chess V. Chess, 17 S. & R 409.
1G8 WITNESSES ABSENT OE DISQUALIFIED. ^ [§ 121.
the subject of litigation, or where he was out of the state,' or,
being found, had wholly forgotten the facts of the case,^ his
testimony given at a former trial has been held inadmissible.
But the weight of the modern cases sustains the more liberal
and reasonable rule by which the testimony of an absent wit-
ness is admitted not only in case of his death but where he
has become incompetent by insanity, imbecility or sickness,'
The testimony of a non-resident witness or of one who is
merely temporarily out of the jurisdiction* given at a former
trial, it is now well settled in England and in many of the
states, is admissible in a subsequent trial of the same issue.'
And if the witness is within the jurisdiction but is kept con-
cealed by the other party, so that it is impossible to serve him
with a subpoena, the court may, in its discretion, admit evi-
dence of his testimony given at the prior trial." This propo-
sition, however, is denied by many of the oases if the witness
is not shown to be dead ; and a fortiori where the residence of
the absentee from the jurisdiction is known and his deposition
can be procured, it has been held elsewhere that his former
testimony was inadmissible,' and that his deposition must be
procured. In criminal cases, though this sort of evidence is
» Wilber v. Selden, 6 Cowen (N. Y.), v. State, 93 Ala. 41 ; Hudson v. Roos,
163 ; Eosenfeld v. Case, 87 Mich. 395 ; 76 Mioh. 180 ; Marler v. State, 67 Ala. .
Finn's Case, 5 Rand. (Va.) 701. 55 ; Howard v. Patrick, 38 Mich. 795 ;
ostein V. Swenson, 46 Minn. 360; Rothrock v. Gallaher, 91 Pa. St. 108;
Dayton v. Wells, 1 Nott & McG. (S. Rosenfield's Case. 87 Mich. 295 ;
e.)409. Whitaker v. Marsh, 63 N. H. 478;
8 Hudson V. Roos, 76 Mich. 180 ; People v. Devine, 46 Cal. 235.
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 6 Reynolds v. United States, 98
155. In New York the testimony of U. S. 155; Cook v. Stout, 47 111. 530;
a deceased witness only can be read Williams v. State, 19 Ga. 403.
in evidence in a subsequent trial. "See post, § 359 et seq. ; Gastrell
Ci-ary v. Sprague, 13 Wend. 41 ; Wil- v. Phillips, 64 Miss. 473 ; Savannah,
ber V. Selden, 6 Cow. 162 ; Mut. Life etc. Co. v. Flanagan, 83 Ga. 579 ;
Ins. Co. V. Anthony, 50 Hun, 101. Rosenfield's Case, 87 Miss. 295 ; Sul-
*"Outof the jurisdiction 'signifies livan v. State, 6 Tex. App. 319;
out of the reach of a subpcena, Meyer Slusser v. Burlington, 47 Iowa, 300 ;
V. Roth, 51 Cal. 583. Stein v. Swenson, 46 Minn. 360 ; Col-
's Omaha v. Jensen (Neb., 1893), 53 lins v. Com., 13 Bush, 371; Kellogg
N. W. Rep. 833; Minn. M. Co. v. v. Socord, 42 Mich. 318; Brogy v.
Minn. etc. Ry. Co., 53 N. W. Rep. Com., 10 Gratt (Va.) 722 ; Gerhauser
639 ; Gunn v. Wade, 65 Ga. 537 ; v. North Brit etc. Co., 7 Nev. 175.
Dolan V. State, 40 Ark. 454 ; Pruitt
§§ 122, 123.] WITNESSES ABSENT OS DISQUALIFIED.
169
sometimes admitted, it should not be received until a diligent
search has been made for the missing witness.'
§ 122. Witnesses who have hecome sick, decrepit or in-
sane.— The testimony of a witness at a former trial who has
since become mentally incapacitated to testify by reason of
insanity,^ or who is confined to his house by illness or by
physical disability ' arising from weakness or from the decrepi-
tude of old age,* may be given in a subsequent trial between
the same parties of the same cause of action.
§ 123. Cross-examination at former trial reiiuisite —
Identity of parties. — In order that the testimony of a de-
ceased or absent witness may be admissible against a party in
a subsequent trial, it is absolutely essential that the party
should have had a full opportunity at the earlier trial of cross-
examining the witness.* If an opportunity of cross-examina-
1 Shackelford v. State, 33 Ark. 539;
Sullivan v. State, 6 Tex. App. 319 ;
Wilder v. St. Paul, 13 Minu. 106.
2 Whitaker v. Marah, 63 N. H. 477 ;
Harrison v. Blades, 3 Campb. 453;
Stein V. Swenson, 49 N. W. Rep. 55 ;
46 Minn. 360; Marler v. State, 67 Ala.
55 ; State t. King, 86 N. C. 803 ; Rex
V. Criswell, 3 T. R. 731 ; State v. Laque,
41 La. Ann. 1070.
3 Perrin v. Wells, 155 Pa. St 299 ;
Miller v. Russell, 7 Mart. (N. S.) 266;
State V. King, 86 N. C. 603. If it
seems likely that the witness will
shortly recover from his illness the
court may, it has been held, adjourn
the trial. Harrison v. Blades, 3
Campb. 458.
* Evidence given on a former trial
cannot be produced on a second trial
without calling the witness, upon the
ground that he has forgotten par-
ticular facts, unless his failure to re-
member is the result of mental imbe-
cility. Stein V. Swenson, 46 Minn.
360 ; 49 N. W. Rep. 55. See Thornton
V. Britton, 144 Pa. St. 126, as to testi-
mony of aged witness.
6 Bradley v. Merrick, 91 N. Y. 393 ;
Hudson V. Applegate (Iowa, .1893), 54
N. W. Rep. 463 ; O'Brien v. Com., 6
Bush (Ky.), 563 ; State v. Johnson, 13
Nev. 131 ; State v. O'Brien, 81 Iowa,
88 ; Marshall v. Hancock, SO Cal. 82.
The evidence of witnesses before ai'-
bitrators will be receivable in a sub-
sequent trial in court of the same
matter. Barley v. Woods, 17 N. H.
365 ; Jaccard v. Anderson, 37 Mo. 91 ;
Bishop V. Tucker, 4 Rich. (S. 0.) 78 ;
Osborn v. Bell, 5 Denio, 370 ; Orr v.
Hadley, 36 N. H. 575. In the trial of
an indictment for murder the testi-
mony taken at the coroner's inquest
held to investigate the death of the
deceased is not admissible where the
witness cannot be produced (State v.
Campbell, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 134 ; Farkas
V. State, 60 Miss. 847 ; Whitehurst v.
Com., 79 Va. 556 ; State v. Cecil, 54
Md. 426 ; McLain v. Com., 99 Pa. St.
86; Dupree v. State, 33 Ala. 380;
State T. McNeil, 33 La. Ann. 1333),
though in one case it was admitted
in behalf of defendant. So the testi-
mony of a witness at a coroner's
inquest is not admissible in a subse-
quent action to recover for the wrong-
ful death, though the witness is dead.
Pittsburg, etc Co. v. McGrath, 115
170 WITNESSES ABSENT OE DISQUALIFIED. [§ 123.
tion has bsen afforded the party against whom the testimony
of the absent witness is subsequently put in evidence, it is not
always necessary that the parties to the several actions should
be precisely identical or that the issue should be the same on
both occasions.' Thus, if the second proceeding is between
those in privity with the parties to the earlier trial, the tes-
timony of a witness in the trial between the original parties
is admissible against those in privity with them, though the
subject-matter of the later litigation is not identical with that
of the earlier.^ But though exact identity of subject-matter
is not generally required, yet the issue in the second proceed-
ins: must have been so far identified and connected with the
subject of the former litigation that the party against whom
the evidence is introduced must have had a right, according
to the rules of evidence, to cross-examine. In other words,
it is required that the evidence should not be incidental, but
that it should be equally relevant to the issues in both trials.'
It is requisite that in the former trial the court should have
had jurisdiction, and if the proceeding were substantially
regular the testimony will not be rejected subsequently on
account of informalities.*
111. 173. - The constitutional right of Goodlett v. Kelly, 74 Ala. 213 ; Charles-
the accused to meet the witnesses woi'lh v. Tinker, 18 Wis. 633.
face to face is not violated by the ad- ^ Lee's Adm'r v. Hill, 12 S. E. Rep.
mission of the testimony of an ab- 1052; 87 Va. 497; Shelton v. Bar-
sent witness taken on a former trial hour, 2 Wash. 64 ; Seattle, etc. Co. v.
wherehehadanopportunity to cress- Gilchrist, 4 Wash. St. 509; Yale t.
examine the witness. Com. v. Rich- Comstock, 112 Mass. 267; Fisher v.
ards, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 484 ; State v. Monroe, 2 Misc. Rep. 326 ; Indianap-
Blemis, 24 Mo. 402. An opportunity olis, etc. Co. v. Stout, 53 Ind. 548;
to cross-examine is not shown by evi- Sohindler V.Milwaukee, etc. Co., 49
dence that counsel in the pending N. W. Rep. 670 ; 87 Mich. 400 ; Jack-
action was present at the previous son v. Crissey; 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 251;
proceeding. Jackson v. Crilly, 16 Strickland v. Hudson, 55 Miss. 235.
Colo. 103. s Jackson v. Winchester, 4 Dall.
1 Jackson v. Crilly, 16 Colo. 103; 206; Melvin v. Whiting, 7 Pick. 79.
Mathews v. Colburn, 1 Strobh. 258 ; Cf. Stayner v. Joyce, 23 N. E. Rep.
Jackson v. Lawson, 15 Johns. 544 ; 89 ; Schindler v. Milwaukee, etc. Co.,
Sohindler v. Railroad Co., 87 Mich. 87 Mich. 400.
400; Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. How- * State v. Johnson, 12 Nev. 121.
ard, 13 How. (U. S.)307; Hunter v. So where on the earlier trial the
Burlington, etc. Co., 76 Iowa, 490; witness was not sworn by consent
Wheeler v. Walker, 12 Vt 437.
§ 124.] WITNESSES ABSENT OE DISQUALIFIED. 171
§ 124. Precise language, how far requisite. — Formerly it
was considered essential that the person who testified to the
evidence of an absent witness should state the exact language
of the witness.' This rule, however, was soon relaxed, and it
is now the law that the exact language need not be given if ,
its substance is accurately stated in the later trial.^ But the
whole of the testimony of the witness upon a particular point
should Be repeated in language as nearlj' identical as possible,
so that the effect produced may correspond with the impres-
sion made upon the jury by the testimony of the witness in
the original trial.' Accordingly, the testimony of the witness
elicited on his cross-examination must be substantially re-
peated.''
At the present time the custom of employing a court ste-
nographer, whose duty it is to take down the testimony of the
witnesses examined, is nearly universal. He is usually a sworn
officer of the court, and his notes or transcripts of them pos-
sess an official character and authenticity which render, them
of great value in case of the subsequent death or absence
of a witness.' Where such records exist, their production on
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 165 ; Wilber ' Bennett v. State, 33 S. W. Rep.
V. Seidell, 6 Cow. 165 ; Montgomery 684.
V. State, 11 Ohio, 431 ; United States * Wade v. State, 7 Baxt. 80 ; Gilder-
V. Wood, 3 Wash. 440; Foster v. sleeve v. Caraway. 10 Ala. 360; Block
Shaw, 7S. &R. 163; Com. v. Rich- v. Woodron, 39 Md. 194; Wolf v.
ards, ISPiok. 464. Wyeth, 11 S. & R. 149; Woods v.
2 State V. O'Brien, 81 Iowa, 88 ; 46 Keys, 14 Allen, 330 ; Puryear v. State,
N. W. Rep. 753 ; Bennett v. State, 33 63 Ga. 693 ; Marsh v. Jones, 31 Vt.
S. W. Rep. 384; Buie v. Carver, 73 N. 378; State v. O'Brien, 81 Iowa, 88;
C. 364 ; Wade v. State, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) Hepler v. Mt. Carm. 3a v. Bank, 97 Pa.
80 ; Gannon v. Stevens, 13 Kan. 447 ; St. 420 ; Black v. Woodson, 39 Md.
Brown V. Com., 73 Pa. St. 321; Stein V. 194: Tibbetts v. Flanders, 18 N. H.
Swenson, 46 Minn. 360 ; Johnson v. 284 ; Wright v. Stowe, 4 Jones' L. (N.
Powers, 40 Vt 611; Mitchell v. State, C.) 516. The objection that the wit-
71 Ga. 138; Home i v. Williams, 33 ness fails to remember the cross-exam-
Ind. 37; Smith v. Natchez S. Co., 1 ination is waived if not made im-
How. (Miss.) 479 ; Lathrop v. Atkin- mediately. State v. O'Brien, 81 Iowa,
son, 81 Ga. 339 ; Martin v. Cope, 3 88 ; 46 N. W. Rep. 753. ,-;
Abb. Dec. 183 ; Young v. Dearborn, 5 That a stenographer's notes are
33 N. H. 373 ; Emery v. Fowler, 39 competent, see District v. Wash. Gas
Me. 336; Lime R Bank v. Hewett, Co., 30 D. C. 39; Hicks v. Lovell, 64
53 id. 531 ; Caton v. Lenox, 5 Rand. Cal. 14 ; Quinn v. Halbert, 57 Vt 178 ;
(Va.) 31. Labor v. Crane, 56 Mich. 585; John-
172 WITNESSES ABSENT OE DISQUALIFIED, [§ 124.
the subsequent trial should, it seems, be required under the
rule requiring the production of the best evidence. But the
verbal testimony of the stenographer, it has been held, in such
a case, given after refreshing his memory by a perusal of his
notes, is admissible,^ provided the notes are shown to the op-
posite party and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine
the witness as to their accuracy.^ A stenographer's notes
taken out of the jurisdiction,^ or taken down from the lips of
an interpreter where the witness testifies in a foreign lan-
guage,^ or when the reporter is dead,' or when for any reason
the notes are not shown to be correct,^ have been held inad-
missible to prove the testimony which a witness gave at a
former trial. The judge's notes also are not competent to
show what the witness said until it is shown that they con-
tain an accurate and complete account of the substance of
the witness' language.' Their incompetency is due to the
fact that they are no part of the record and are not made
within the scope of official duty or under the sanction of an
official oath, which would guaranty that they are complete or
correct.^ So when it is sought to show, by the bill of ex-
ceptions, or a case on appeal, the testimony of u witness
at a former trial, a foundation must be laid by proving
that the bill does actually contain all the evidence given by
the witness.' When, however, the record is not obtainable,
son V. Spear,_ 83 Mich. 453 ; Sage v. 8 Elberfeldt v. Waite, 79 Wis. 384
State, 27 Ind. 15; 26 N. E. Rep. 667. Ex parte Learmouth, 6 Madd. 113
1 Rounds V. State, 57 Wis. 45 ; Pec- Regina v. Child, 5 Cox C. C. 197
pie V. Chung, 57 Cal. 567; Hicks v. Schafer v. Schafer, 93 Ind. 586; Miles
Lovel], 64 Cal. 14 ; Shackelford v. v. O'Hara, 4 Binn. (Pa.) 108 ; Huff v.
State, 33 Ark. ^59 ; Moore v. Moore, Bennett, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 120 ; Sar-
39 Iowa, 461. geant v. Marshall, 38 111. App. 642.
2 People V. Lon You (Cal., 1893), 33 9 Woolen v. Wire, 110 Ind. 351
Pac. Rep. 11. Case v. Blood, 71 Iowa, 632; Slinger-
3 Herrick v. Swomley, 56 Md. 439. land v. Slingerland, 46 Minn. 100
^People V. AhYute, 56Cal. 119. Davis v. Kline, 9 S. W. Rep. '724
» Trunkey v. Hedstrom, 38 111. App. Odell v. Solomon, 4 N. Y. S. 440
^9^- Dwyer V. Rippetoe, 72 Te.x. 520
6 People v.^filigh, 48 Mich. 54. Coughlin v. Haensler, 50 Mo. 126 ; St
'SimmonSv. Spratt, 1 S. Rep. 860; Joseph v. Union Ry. Co. (Mo., 1893),
Thompson v. Richardson (Ala., 1893), 33 S. W. Rep. 794 ; Fisher v. Fisher,
11 S. Rep. 728 ; Wade v. State, 7 Baxt. 131 Ind. 463. Of, Elgin v. Welch, 23
(Tenn.) 80; Elberfeldt v. Waite, 79 III. App. 185.
Wis. 284.
§ 124.] WITNESSES ABSENT OE DISQUALIFIED. 173
any person who has heard the witness, as, for example, the
counsel of one of the parties or a juror,' a justice,^ master in
chancery,' committing magistrate,* interpreter^ or newspaper
correspondent* will be allowed to testify to the language of
an absent witness from notes taken on the former trial.' In
case counsel in the subsequent trial enter into a stipulation by
which they agree upon the admissibility of the witnesses'
notes, a verification or identification under oath may be dis-
pensed with.^ But such a stipulation does not make the tes-
timony taken in the prior case evidence unless it is actually
introduced as such.'
'Hutchings V. Corgan, 59 111. 70. Davis v. Kline (Mo., 1888), 9 S. W.
2Elberfeldt v. Waite, 79 Wis.^284; Rep. 724; People v. Murphy, 45 Cal.
48 N. W. Hep. 525 ; Chase v. Debolt, 137 ; Euoh v. Eock Island, 97 U. S.
7 111. 571. 693.
'Yale V. Cnrastock, 112 Mass. 267. SNutt v. Thompson, 69 N. C. 548;
* Wade V. State, 7 Baxt (Tenn.) 80. Clark v. Vance, 15 Wend. 193; Lath-
6 People V. Ah Yute, 56 Cal. 119. rop v. Adkinson, 87 Ga. 389.
' Moore v. Moore, 39 Iowa, 461. 9 Pitts v. Lewis, 81 Iowa, 51 ; 46 N.
' Carpenter v. Tucker, S8 N. C. 316 ; W. Eep. 739 ; United States Exp. Co.
Loughry v. Wait, 34 IlL App. 523; v. Jenkins, 78 Wis. 471.
CHAPTER XII.
PRIVATE WRITINGS.
125. Definition and classification.
126. Production of writing— Proof
of contents by secondary
evidence.
Writings obtained by fraud or
deceit — Decoy letters.
Spoliation and alteration dis-
tinguished — Efifect of ma-
terial alterations.
Alterations — Presumptions
and burden of px-oof to ex-
plain.
130. Private writings lost or de-
stroyed.
Handwriting defined.
Production of writings, when
necessary.
Proof by admissions of party.
137.
128.
129.
131.
133.
133.
§ 134
135.
136.
When proof of handwriting
may be dispensed with —
Acknowledgments.
Who may take acknowledg-
ments.
The certificata
137. Impeaching the certificate.
138. Proof by subscribing wit-
nesses.
139. Proof by witnesses acquainted
with party's handwriting.
139a. Mode of examining witnesses
as to handwriting.
Comparison of handwriting.
To what expert may give evi-
dence.
Proof of exhibits in equity.
140.
141.
143.
§ 125. Definition and classification. — " The word ' writing'
in its broadest sense means words traced with a pen, or
stamped, printed or engraved, or made legible by any other
device." ' Writings are divided into two classes — public and
private. A public, writing may be defined as the written act
or record of the business of the people of the community
proceeding from the supreme executive, legislative or judicial
authority either of the federal government, of the government
of a state or foreign country, or of some public officer, court
or official body created by law and deriving their powers from
that government, including also all official records of private
writings.
Public writings are subdivided into four classes, viz. : Pub-
lic lawsj judicial records,' records Itept hy public officials in
1 Anderson's Diet ; Henshaw v. Fo»- common law.
ter, 9 Pick. 318. A printed ticket is 127 U. S. 467.
a " writing " and may be forged at
Benson v. McMaboD,
§ 126.] PEIVATB WETTINGS. 175
pursuance of statute or as a part of their official duty, and
public records of private loritings}
All writings not comprised in any of these classes, and
which concern the affairs of one or more individuals only, are
private.^ The words "document" and "writing" approxi-
mate closely in meaning and may be and are often used inter-
changeably with correctness. The word "instrument" has
perhaps a more restricted meaning; for while it is often used
to describe anj' writing, its more proper meaning is a docu-
ment or writing of a formal or deliberate character which
is intended to be used as a means of, judicial evidence. Thus
under the words "instrument" or "written instrument"
would properly be mcluded bonds, conveyances, wills and
other formal or solemn instruments; while on the other hand,
letters, accounts, memoranda and the like, the creation of
which was not primarily intended to create a binding obliga-
tion or title, could not in strictness of language be called
instruments.'
§ 126. Production of writings — Proof of contents by
secondary evidence. — In the absence of statute the produc-
tion of private writings may be secured either by a bill of
discovery in chancery or by a subpoena duces tecum.* By fed-
eral statutes and by statutes regulating practice in the states
which have adopted the reformed procedure it is now per-
mitted for the court, after notice to the other party and upon
motion, to grant an order for the discovery and production
of books and papers in his hands or to compel him to grant
an inspection of them and permission to take copies thereof.
The party compelled to produce papers is allowed a reason-
able time to do so, but if he fails to comply with the order, the
court may in its discretion order that the action to which the
document is relevant be dismissed or his pleading be stricken
out and judgment be rendered accordingly. The court may
also direct that the writing shall not be admitted in evidence
in favor of the party refusing to produce and may punish him
1 Abbott's Dig., vol. 3, title " Evi- ' Abbott's Law Diet. ; Hankinson
dence." See, also, McCall v. United v. Page, 3 Fed. Rep. 186; State v. Kel-
States, 1 Dak. 321-338. sey, 44 N. J. Law, 34
■■i Anderson's Law Diet, "Docu- < See posf, § 379.
meuts,"
176 PEITATE WBITINGS. [§ 126.
for contempt, or both.' These statutes ' have superseded the
necessity of a notice to produce; but where they do not ob-
tain, the common-law notice to produce is still employed, irre-
spective of the fact that in consequence of the statutory
competency of the party as a witness thei production of the
papers may be secured by a subpcena duces tecum."
At common law, in order to lay a foundation for the introduc-
tion of secondary evidence of a writing where the adverse party
has refused to produce it, it is necessary to prove the exist-
ence of the writing to thesatisfaction of the court,* and that
it is in the possession or control of the adverse party,' though
if the writing is in the possession of another in privity with
him, notice to the latter is suflScient." The notice to produce
may be verbal,^ but must describe the writing required with
reasonable precision.^ A notice to produce a letter will re-
quire the production of its envelope,' and should be season-
ably served on the party or his attorney •" before the com-
mencement of the trial." "Where the writing is collateral to
the issue,'- or if an adverse party has by force or fraud ob-
tained possession of the papers,'' or attempts to give second-
ary evidence of their contents,''' or offers to produce them,"
1 N. y. Code Civ. P., 803-809. See, 5 Dix v. Atkins, 128 Mass. 43 ; Rob-
also, Traverse v. Satterlee, 67 Hun, erts v. Spencer, 123 id. 397 ; Heury v.
652; 32 N. Y. S. 118; Schwartz v, Leigh, 3 Camp. 499, 502.
Atkin, 12 Pa. Co. Ct Rep. 373 ; Simon « Sinclair v. Stevenson, 1 0. & P.
V. Ash, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 202 ; .20 S. W. 582.
Rep. 719; Gould v. MoCarty, 1 Ker- 'Brokman v. Myers, 59 Hun, 633.
nan, 575 ; Sanchez v. Dickinson, 19 « Austine v. Treat (Mich., 1888), 39
N. Y. S. 733. N. W. Rep. 749.
2 See Marrone v. N. Y. Jockey « United States v. Duff, 19 Blatehf.
Club, 14 N. Y. S. 199; Bridgman v. 10.
Scott, 13 id. 838; 59 Hun, 624; Fro- ''Pitts v. Emmons, 93 Mich. 542;
wein V. Lindheim, 11 N. Y. S. 495; Glenn v. Rogers, 3 Md. 312; Holt v.
Wahed El Tazi v. Stein, 59 Hun, Miers, 9 C. & P. 191 ; Reg. v. Kitson,
622 ; Eigdon v. Conley, 31 111. App. 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 509.
630. u Chattues v. Raitt, 20 Ohio, 133 ;
' Rigdon v. ConTey, supra; Roberts Sturm v. Jeffers, 3 C. & K. 442 ; Em-
V. Dixon, 50 Kan. 436 ; Spiers v. Wil- erson v. Fisk, 6 Greenl. 300 ; Hughes
son, 4 Cranch, 398 ; Homeyer v. N. v. Budd, 8 Dowl. 315.
J. a ife W. Co., 66 Hun, 636; Doon »2Coonrod v. Madden, 126 Ind. 197.
v. Donaher, 113 Mass. 151 ; Vinal v. '' Doe v. Ries, 7 Bing. 724 ; Neally
Burrill, 16 Pick. 401, 407; Northrup v. Greenough, 5 Foster (N. H.), 335.
V. Jackson, 13 Wend, 86 ; Pangburn " Bartholomew v. Stephens, 8 C.
V. Insurance Co., 63 Mich. 638. & P. 728.
« Sharps v. Lamb, 8 P. & D. 454. »« Dwinell v. Larrabee, 88 Me. 464.
§ 127.] PRIVATE WEITINGS. 1T7
notice to produce is not necessary in order to lay a founda-
tion for secondary evidence.^ But writings which have been
produced upon notice are not thereby made evidence unless
the party demanding their production so inspects them as to
become acquainted with their contents. If he does examine
them, to that extent they are, according to some of the de-
cisions, evidence for both parties to the cause.^
If the fact of a demand and refusal to produce be left in
doubt, or if the existence of and the search for the writing are
not shown, secondary evidence of the contents of the instru-
ment will not be received.' The sufficiency of the proof that
the instrument cannot be produced by the party desirous of
proving its contents by secondary evidence is for the judge,*
and his decision will not be reviewed unless it is based upon
an error of law.'
§ 127. Writings obtained by fraud or deceit — Decoy let-
ters.— The fact that documentary evidence has been obtained
illegitimately or irregularly, or secured by the practice of
deceit upon a person against whom they are introduced, will
not, if it is in other respects admissible, cause its rejection."
So documentary evidence obtained by the use of decoy letters
is admissible very often from the necessity of the case in the
prosecution of a person indicted for mailing obscene articles,
11 Greenl. on Evid., § 561. Cf. berg, 37 Mo. App. 385; Stratton v.
Bourne v. Boston, 3 Gray, 494 ; Hawks, 43 Kan. 541 ; Carr v. Miller,
Blanchard v. Young, 11 Gush. 341, 43 111. 179; Walker v. School Dist.,
345. 33 Conn. 326.
2 Calvert v. Flower, 7 C. & P. 386 ; 5 Smith v. Brown (Mass., 1890), 34
Long V. Drew, 114 Mass. 77; Clark N. E. Eep. 31; Bonds v. Smith, 106
V. Fletcher, 1 Allen, 53. Contra, N. C. 553 ; Gorgas v. Hertz, 150 Pa.
Blake v. Euss, 33 Me. 360 ; Austin v. St. 538 ; Bain v. Welsh, 85 Me. 108.
Thompson, 45 N. H. 113. Marking ^\ Greenl. on Evid., § 354a, citing
paper as an exhibit does not neces- Com. v. Dana, 2 Met. 337, 329 ; Lsgatt
sarily make a writing evidence. Cas- v. ToUervey, 14 East, 303. "Where
tell V. Millison, 41 111. App. 61. See the guilty intent to commit crime has
po^, § 142. been formed, any one may furnish
3 Nolan V. Pelham, 77 Ga. 362 ; opportunities or even lend assistance
Hanover F. 1 Co. v. Lewis, 33 Fla, to the crimiual to expose him. But
193; 1 S. Rep. 863. no court will countenance a violation
*Milford V. Veazie (Me., 1888), 14 of positive law or conirivances for
Atl. Rep. 730; Smith v. Brown, 151 inducing a person to commit a
Mass. 339; United States v. Sutton, crime." United States v. Whittier,
31 How. 170, 175; Lindauer v. Mey- 5 Dill. 39, 45, by Treat, J.
13
178 PEIVATE WEITINGS. [§ 128.
for robbing the mails, or for a violation of the postal or
revenue laws. The manner in which the evidence has been
procured will not be inquired into by the court, ngr should it
be permitted to discredit its force in the mind of the jury.'
In the case of an indictment for sending obscene literature
through the mails, it is immaterial that the evidence against
the accused consisted of certain writings sent to a detective
under an assumed name.^ But it is always necessarj"- in prose-
cuting for a theft of mail matter that the decoy letter should
have become a part thereof by deposit in the mail in some of
the ways provided by the postoffice department.'
§ 128. Spoliation and alteration distiugaished — Effect
of material alterations. — The act of a stranger to the writ-
ing resulting in its alteration or mutilation does not change
its legal effect if the writing remains legible and a trace of the
seal can be seen where a seal is required.* Accordingly the
alteration or total destruction of a deed or other writing by a
stranger has no other effect upon the rights of the party claim-
ing under it than to compel the proof of its loss to allow the
introduction of secondary evidence of its contents.* But a
distinction is made between a spoliation by a stranger, fre-
quently done accidentally, and for ^hich the innocent party
cannot justly be called upon to suffer a loss, and the deliberate
alteration of the writing. The word " alteration " as thus
used does not refer to every cancellation, interlineation or
1 United States v. Slenker, 33 Fed. * 1 GreenL Evid., § 566.
Rep. 694; Speiden v. State, 3 Tex. sconsaul v. Sheldon, 35 Neb. S47
App. 156 ; Wright v. State, 7 id. 574 ; In re Leigh (1892), Prob. 82 ; Cutts v.
United States v. Eapp, 30 Fed. Rep. United States, 1 Gall. 69 ; Boyd v,
818; Saunders v. People, 38 Mich. McConnell, 10 Humph. (Tenn.)
223 ; United States v. Cuttingham, 3 United States v. Spalding, 2 Mason,
Blatchf. 470 ; People v. Collins, 53 478 ; Boteler v. Dexter, 20 D. C. 26
Cal. 185; State v. Jansen, 33 Kan. Anthony v. Beal, 111 Mo. 637
498; People v. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 187; Marshal v. Yougler, 10 S. & R. 164
Commonwealth v. Cohen, 137 Mass. Raper v. Birkbeck, 15 East, 17
383. Nichols v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 193
2 United States v. Bott, 11 Blatchf. White Sew. M. Co. v. Dakin, 86 Mich,
346 ; Bates v. United States, 10 Fed. 581 ; Davis v. Shafer, 50 Fed. Rep. 74
Rep. 93, 97-100. Contra, United Wylie v. Miss. Pao. R. Co., 41 Fed.
States V. Whittier, 5 Dill. 39-41. Rep. 033.
'United States v. Rapp, 30 Fed.
Rep. 833.
§ 128.] PRIVATE WEITINQS. 179
erasure made in the instrument, but is confined to those by
which the original legal significance of its language is changed ;
and usually to those changes only in which a fraudulent intent
exists or may be implied from all the circumstances.^ Where
such an alteration is shown to have been made by a party, the
decisions are unanimous in supporting the rule that the writ-
ing, whether under seal or not, is thereby made void, upon the
manifestly just principle that no man shall be allowed to act
fraudulently without assuming the risk of losing if his fraud
is detected.^ But mere memoranda made on a writing,' or
immaterial alterations by which the writing is not made to
convey a different meaning in any essential respect, will not
avoid it, provided they are innocently made. So where terms
are inserted by a party which the law would supply, or which
have no meaning, his act will not be a material alteration or
vitiate the whole instrument.* "Where an alteration is fraudu-
lently made it has been considered to be of no importance
whether it is material, the presence of a fraudulent intent
being deemed sufficient to avoid the writing.'
In the discussion of the alteration of writings the distinc-
tion between covenants and contracts which are executed and
1 Express Co. v. Aldine Press, 126 7 N. Y. S. 98; Bank v. Wolfif, 79 Cal.
Pa. St. 347 ; King v. Rea, 21 Pac. Rep. 69 ; Burrows v. Klunk, 70 Md. 451.
1084 ; CroBwell v. Labree, 81 Me. 44 ; The materiality of the alteration is a
First Nat. Bank v. Carson, 60 Mich, question for the court. Pritchard v.
433. Smith, 77 Ga. 463 ; Mclntyre v. Velte,
2 Wegner v. State, 28 Tex. App. 419 ; 153 Pa. St. 350.
HolliQgsworth v. Holbrook (Iowa, ^Maness v. Henry (Ala., 1893), 11
1890), 45 N. W. Rep. 561 ; Palmer v. S. Rep. 470.
Poore, 121 Ind. 135; Flanigan v. ^Swigart v. Weare, 37 111. App.
Phelps, 42 Minn. 186 ; Sanders v. Bag- 258; Reed v. Kemp, 16 111. 445;
well (S. C, 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 770 ; Mach. Co. v. Barry, 2 Misc. Rep. 264 ;
Bank v. Nickell, 84 Mo. App. 295; Hunt v. Adams, 6 Mass. 519; Smith
Wiseman v. Fleischer, 10 Pa. Co. Ct v. Crooker, 5 Mass, 538 ; Fischer v.
R, 300 ; Magers v. Dunlap, 39 111. App. King, 53 Pa. St. 3 ; Knapp v. Maltby,
618 ; Walton v. Campbell (Neb., 1892), 13 Wend. 587 : Green v. Beckney, 8
52 N. W. Rep. 883 ; Gordon v. Bank, Ind. App. 39 ; Bank v. Good, 44 Mo.
144 U. S. 97 ; Sherwood v. Merritt, 83 App. 129 ; Brown v. Purkham, 18
Wis. 233 ; Burnham v. Gosnell, 47 Pick. 173 ; Magers v. Dunlap, 39 111.
Mo. App. 637 ; Little Rock Trust Co. App. 618.
V. Martin, 21 S. Rep. 468 ; Croswell v. ^ i Greenl. on Evid., § 568. See cases
Labree, 81 Me. 44 ; Clapp v, Collins, supra; Smith v. Dunbar, 8 Pick. 346.
180
PEIVATE WEITINGS.
[§ 128.
those which are executory merely should not be lost sight of.'
Thus in the case of a deed the grantee does not hold his title
by virtue of tiie existence of the deed, which is now only the
written evidence of a past transaction, and after his estate is
once vested he may alter or destroy the deed without destroy-
ing his title to the estate.^ But the deed, where it has been
ijiaterially altered by him with a fraudulent intent, is no
longer evidence in his hands in any proceedings founded upon
its covenants or agreements.' "Where the alteration is made
before delivery,* or after delivery with the consent of both
parties,^ the validity of the instrument will not be affected.
"Where a power of attorney,^ deed'' or custo...ci bond^ or an
undertaking on appeal ' or similar instrument is intentionally
executed in blank as to subject-matter, or amount or name of
the party, and is subsequently filled in by one of the parties,
the writing will be valid and will be admissible in evidence.'"
1 Gleason v. Hamilton, 138 N. Y.
353.
- If the alteration was made before
record, where record is necessary to
vest title in the grantee, the altered
deed, when registered, will be in-
operative and title will remain in-the
grantor. 'Respess v. Jones, 103 N. C. 5.
3 Woods V. Hilderbrand, 46 Mo.
284 ; Wallace v. Harmstead, 44 Pa.
St. 492 ; Dana v. Newhall, 13 Mass.
498 ; Fletcher v. Memsur, 5 Ind. 267 ;
Rifener v. Bowman, 53 Pa. St. 318 ;
Bliss v. Mclutire, 18 Vt. 466 ; Coit v.
Starkweather, 8 Conn. 289 ; Com. v.
Hanson, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 554 ; 1
Greenl. on Evid., § 568; Hollis v.
Harris (Ala., 1893), 10 S. Rep. 377 ;
Jackson v. Gould, 7 Wend. 364 ; Rus-
sell V. Longmore,. 29 Neb. 286 ; Arri-
son V. Harmstead, 2 Barr, 191;
Hatch V. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307 ; Mcln-
tyre v. Velte, 153 Pa. St 350 ; Whifr
mer v. Fry, 10 Mo. 348; Alkire v.
Kahla, 123 111. 496. So it has bee-ii
held that the grantee will not be per-
mitted to prove the covenant by
parol. Martindale v. Follet, 1 N. H.
93, and oases supra.
* Stewart v. Preston, 1 Fla. 10 ; Bos-
ton V. Benson, 13 Cash. (Mass.) 61 ;
Wright V.Wright, 7 N. J. L. 175;
Campbell v. McArthur, 2 Hawks
(N. G), 33; Britton v. Stanley, 4
Whart. (Pa.) 114; Ravisies v. Alston,
5 Ala. 297.
5 Wooley V. Constant, 4 Johns. 54 ;
Speake v. United States, 9 Cranch,
28; Smith v. Weed, 20 Wend. 184;
Berry v. Haines, 4 Wheat 17 ; Stiles
V. Probst 69 111. 382 ; Tompkins v.
Corinth, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 255 ; Jack-
son V. Johnson, 67 Ga. 187 ; Collins
V. Collins, 51 Miss. 511; Bassett v.
Bassett 55 Me. 125.
6 Egleton V. Gutteridge, 11 II & W.
468.
7 Cribben v. Deal, 21 Oreg. 211.
8 Bank v. Kortright, 23 Wend.
348.
9 Ex parte Decker, 6 Cowen, 59.
10 Christian Co. Bank v. Good, 44
Mo. App. 139 ; Gordon v. Je£fery, 2
Leigh (Va.), 410 ; Gilbert v. Anthony,
1 Yerg. 69; Knapp v. Maltby, IS
Wend. 587 ; Plank-road Co. v. Wetsel,
21 Barb. 56 ; Shelton v. Dearing, 10 R
■ Men. 405. See remarks of Mr. Jus-
§ 129.] PRIVATE WBITINGS. 181
If a person through inadvertence and negligently issues a
negotiable instrument in which spaces or blanks are left, af-
fording an opportunity for the insertion of words without
exciting suspicion, and the note is altered, the writing will be
evidence against the maker in the hands of a hona fide holder
for value.'
§ 129. Alterations — Presumptions and burden of proof
to explain. — When an instrument offered shows alterations or
interlineations on its face, it may justly be regarded with
some suspicion and the party claiming under it should be com-
pelled to account for its altered condition.^ This he may do
by slight evidence if upon examination the alteration is noted
in the attestation clause as having been made prior to or con-
temporaneously with its execution, or if the alteration is
against his interest.' Whether any presumption exists as to
the date of an unexplained alteration in a deed or similar
writing the courts are divided. It has been held that, as fraud
will not be presumed, an alteration in an instrument inter
vivos will, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, be pre-
sumed to have been made before deliver3^* On the other
hand, other decisions deny the existence of any presumption,'
tice Johnson in Duncan v. Hughes, Bailey v. Taylor, 11 Conn. 5S1 ; Coul-
I McCord, 239, 340. son v. Walton, 9 Pet. 62; Russell v.
1 Brown v. Phelan, 3 Swan (Tenn.), Lougmoro, 29 Neb. 209 ; Zimmer-
639 ; Meikel v. Savings Institution, man v. Camp, 155 Pa. St. 353.
36 Ind. 355 ; Bechtel's Appeal (Pa., *■ Stillwell v. Patton, 18 S. W. Rep.
1890), 19 Atl. Rep. 413 ; Beaman v. 1075 ; 108 Mo. 353 ; Boofchby v. Stan-
Russell, 20 Vt. 305 : Bailey v. Taylor, ley, 84 Me. 515 ; No. Riv. Meadow
II Conn. 531; McCorraick v. Fitz- Co. v. Shrewsbury Church, 3 N. J. Eq.
morris, 09 Mo. 34; Muckleroy v. 424; Houston v. Jordan, 83 Tex., 352;
Bethany, 27 Tex. 551. Dow v. Jeurl, 18 N. H. 356 ; Gallaud
2 Elgin V. Hall, 82 Va. 680; Hess' v. Jaokman, 26 Cal. 85 ; United States
Appeal, 26 W. N. C. 121 ; Capehart v. Linn, 1 How. 104 ; Harding v.
V. Mills (Ala., 1893); Johnson v. Bank, 81 Iowa, 499 ; Bedgood v. Mc-
First Mar. B. R., 38 Neb. 492 ; Tillon Lain, 89 Ga. 793 ; Jackson v. Osborn,
V. Insurance Co., 7 Barb. 564 ; Stay- 2 W,end. 555.
ner v. Joyce, 120 Ind. 99 ; Hartley v. 5 Tiedemau on R. P., § 790 ; Wilde v.
Carboy, 150 Pa. St. 23 ; Newcome v. Armsbj', 6 Cush. 314 ; Comstock v.
Presbury, 8 Met. 406; Nesbitt v. Smith, 26 Mich. 306; Knight v.
Turner, 155 Pa. St 429. As to ex- Clement, 8 A. & E. 215 ; Herrick
pert evidence to explain alterations, v. Malin, 33 Wend. 388 ; Beaman v.
see § 141. Russell, 20 Yt. 305 ; Bailey v. Taylor,
3 In re Carver, 23 N. Y. S. 753; 11 Conn. 531; Hunting v. Finch, 3
182
PEITATE WEITINGS.
[§ 129.
and leave it for the jury to decide where and when the altera-
tion occurred.'
A will, unlike a deed, is subject to change until the death
of the testator. It is also customary for persons to alter their
wills after execution ; and for this reason, unattested altera-
■tions are, in the absence of evidence showing when they were
made, presumed to have been made subsequent to execution
of the will - or codicil, if the latter does not expressly refer to
them.' ■'■''? ! '-'I-: 1
In regard to alterations in other instruments, no presump-
tions as to their date are generally recognized. Eut where it
is shown that a note has been altered after execution, it will
be presumed to have been done fraudulently * and without
the knowledge or consent of the maker ; ' and a party pro-
ducing and claiming under such an instrument will have the
burden of proof cast upon him to explain every material al-
teration that would be in his favor.''
Ohio, 445 ; Jordan v. Stewart, 23 Pa.
St. 244.
1 McCoi-mick v. Fitzmorris, 39 Mo.
34. " In the absence of proof the pre-
sumption is that a correction by
erasure in a deed was made before
execution. This doctrine rests upon
principle ; and a deed cannot be
altered after it is executed without
fraud or wrong. Tlie cases are not
uniform, but the most stringent ones
leave the question to the jury." Lit-
tle V. Herndon, 10 Wall. 31.
2 Wetmore v. Curry, 5 Redf. 544 ;
Wright V. Wright, 5 Ind. 389 ; Dyer
T. Irving, 2 Dem. 160; Wheeler v.
J Bent, 7 Pick. 61.
3 Rowley v. Merlin, 6 Jur. (N. S.)
1165. A will found mutilated is pre-
sumed to have been torn after its
execution. Christmas v. Whingates,
32 L. J. Prob. 73. "To draw cross-
lines over the face of an instrument
is a common mode of showing an
^intention thereby to make an end of
it. In earlier times, when few per-
sons could write, the mass of men
could manifest their intention with
pen and ink only by unlettered marks.
When the instrument is so marked
by the maker as to show clearly that
the act was designed to be a can-
celing, that act becomes effectual aa
a revocation.'' Warner v. Warner's
Estate, 37 Vt. 362-63.
4 Robinson v. Reed, 46 Iowa, 220;
Shroeder v. Webster (Iowa, 1893), 55
N. W. Rep. 569.
6 See cases in last note ; Soaks v.
Eichberg, 42 111. App. 375 ; Croswell
V. Labree, 81 Me. 44.
6 Hill V. Nelmes, 88 Ala. 442 ; Wilde
V. Armsby, 6 Gush. (Mass.) 314
Knight V. Clements, 8 A. & El. 215
Hartley v. Carboy, 150 Pa. St. 23
Hills V. Barnes, 11 N. H. 395; Nesbitt
V. Turner, 155 Pa. St. 429; Hum-
phreys V. Guillow, 13 N. H. 385;
Clark V. Eckstein, 22 Pa. St 507;
Printup V. Mitchell, 17 Ga..558;
Mathews v. Coalter, 9 Mo. 705 ; Bar-
ringer V. Bank, 14 S. & R. 405;
Beaman v. Russell, 20 Vt 205.
§ 130.]^
PEIVATE WEITINGS.
183
Substantial identity of name as a rule creates a presumption
of identity of person,' which is rebuttable by slight circum-
stances, as by a difference of a single letter,^ or where to sup-
port the presumption it is necessary to impeach the presump-
tive correctness of records of a court of law.^
§ 130. Private writings lost or destroyed.— Where a
party's right or title is founded upon a private writing, in-
cluding under that term deeds of release and conveyances,
bonds, promissory notes and other evidences of indebtedness,
he will be required to produce it in evidence or to account
satisfactorily for its absence.* In case it is alleged to be lost
or destroyed, the party will be required to show by clear
proof that the paper once existed,' and that a careful and
hona fide search has been made for it without success. The
circumstances of the search having been thus shown jprima
facie, the oath of the party that the instrument is lost or
destroyed is admissible and must be introduced.*
1 Stallings v. Whitaker, 55 Ark.
494; Tausig v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep.
409 ; Simonsen v. Dolau (Mo., 1893),
S,\ S. W. Eep. 510 ; Guestin v. Mom-
bleu (111., 1893), 33 N. E. Eep. 49;
<jra!v. etc. Co. v. Daniels, 1 Tex. Civ,
App. 695 ; State v. McGuire, 87 Mo.
643; People v. Eolfe, 6i Cal. 541;
Hatcher v. Eochelaw, 18 N. Y. 87 ;
Grindle v. Stone, 78 Me. 176 ; Bell v.
Brewster, 44 Ohio St. 690. Parties
named in deeds constituting a chain
of title are presumed to be the same
persons who claim under it Cross
v. Martin, 46 Vt 14; Chamble v.
Martin, 37 Tex. 139. Of two persons
of the same name mentioned it is
presumed that the elder is meant.
Bennett v. Libhart, 37 Mich. 489;
Brown v. Metz, 33 111. 339 ; Getts v.
Watson, 18 Mo. 374 ; Gates v. Lof tus,
3 A. K Marsh. 308.
2Burford v. McCue, 53 Pa. St. 427;
■Gonzalia v. Bartelman (111., 1893), 33
N. E. Rep. 533 ; Bennett v. Libhart,
^7 Mich. 489; Howard v. Lock (Ky.,
1893), 33 S. W. Eep. 333.
3 Bryan v. Kales (Ariz., 1893), 31
Pac. Eep. 517. The middle name or
its initial is no part of a person's
name. Long v. Campbell, 37 W. Va.
665 ; Johnson v. Day, 3 N. D. 395.
* §§ 30-34.
s Gorgas v. Hertz, 150 Pa. St. 538.
So it has been said that the lost in-
strument must be proved to have
been executed, though strict proof of
the act of execution would perhaps
be dispensed with if its existence as
a valid and binding obligation was
shown. Gillis v. Wilmington E. Co.,
13 S. E. Rep. 11 ; Johnson v. Rail-
road Co., 90 Ala. 505 ; Kelsey v.
Hanmer, 18 Conn. 311 ; Porter v.
Ferguson, 4 Fla. 108; Wakefield v.
Day, 41 Minn. 344; Irving v. Camp-
bell, 56 N. Y. Super. Ct. 834.
e Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 340;
Bingham v. Hyland, 6 N. Y. S. 75 ;
Lynn v. Morse, 76 Iowa, 665; Du-
lany v. Walsh, 33 S. W. Eep. 131 ;
Riggs V. Tayloe, 9 Wheat. 486 ; Page
V. Page, 15 Pick. 368; Shirley v,
Dewey, 17 Ohio, 156; Chamberlaia
184:
PKITATE WEITINGS.
[§ 130.
"Whether the loss or destruction of the instrument is satis-
factorily shown is a preliminary question for the court. The
amount of diligence! required depends largely, if not wholly,
upon the circumstances of each case as it arises, less diligence
beins: demanded where the document is old or where it was
presumed to be of little value.^ As a rule it is necessary that
the loss or destruction of the instrument should be shown
tefore parol proof can be received of its contents.^
This rule should be taken with some modification, as it is
usually necessary to state, though not precisely, some of the
contents of the instrument as descriptive of it.' "Where the
lost instrument in the hands of a liona fide holder would be
valid against the maker though he had been compelled to pay
its amount, the proof of its loss or destruction must be of
sufficient cogency to convince the court and jury upon all the
circumstances that the maker will not be compelled to pay it
again.'' But in modern practice the requirement that the
plaintiff shall give security to reimburse the defendant in case
V. Gorham, 20 Johns. 144; Bigelow
V. Summers, 38 Fla. 759. Of. Over-
and V. Menczer, 83 Tex. 133; An-
thony V. Beale, 111 Mo. 637.
1 Jameson v. Snyder (Wis., 1890),
48 N. W. Eep. 261 ; Glassell v. Mason,
32 Ala. 719; Page v. Page, 15 Pick.
368; Blalook v. Miland, 87 Ga. 573;
Baohelder v. Nutting, 16 N. H. 261 ;
Woodwoi-th V. Barker, 1 Hill, 176;
Kelsey v. Hanmer, 18 Conn. 311 ;
Bruns v. Close, 9 Colo. 225 ; Bohart v.
Chamberlain, 99 Mo. 632.
2McClure v. Campbell (Neb., 1888),
40 N. W. Rep. 595; Eoehl v. Han-
messer, 114 Ind. 811 ; Georgia, etc. Co.
T. Strickland, 80 Ga. 776 ; 6 S. E. Rep.
27; Woods v. Burke, 67 Mich. 674;
35 N. W. Rep. 768 ; Columbus, etc. v.
Tillman, 79 Ga. 607 ; 5 S. E. Rep. 135 ;
Smith V. Lindsay, 89 Mo. 76 ; Cham-
berlain V. Boon, 74 Tex. 659 ; Nichols
V. Howe, 43 Minn. 181 ; Mugge v.
Adams, 76 Tex, 448 ; Brown v. Grif-
fith, 70 Cal. 14 ; Ross v. Goodwin, 88
Ala. 390 ; Chicago, etc. Co. v. Brown,
44 Kan. 384; Simpson v. Walby, 63
Mich. 439; Terpening v. Holton, 9
Colo. 306 ; Wolff v. Mathews, 39 Mo.
App. 376 ; Phillips v. Trow. Fur. Co.,
86 Ga. 699; Kilgore v. Stanley, 90
Ala. 533; Ebersole v. Rankin, 103
Mo. 488 ; Rush v. French, 1 Ariz. 99 ;
Ford V. Cunningham, 87 Cal. 309. A
careful search in the place where the
document was last seen, was usually
kept or is most likely to be found is
sufficient. Bruns v. Close, 9 Colo. 325 ;
Henry v. Diviney, 101 Mo. 378 ; Foot
V. Silliman, 77 Tex. 268.
sFlinn v. McGonigle, 9 W. & S.
(Pa.) 75 ; Bouldin v. Massie, 7 Wheat
122, 154, 155 ; Tetes v. Volmer, 58 Hun,
1 ; Grain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614 ;
17 S. W. Rep. 243.
^Anderson v. Roleson, 3 Bay, 495 ;
Rowley V. Ball, 3 Cowen, 303 ; Du-
laney v. Walsh, 22 S. W. Rep. 131 ;
Swift V. Stevens, 8 Conn. 431 ; Lan-
bach V. Mires, 141 Pa. St 447 ; Boteler
V. Dexter, 20 D. C. 26 ; Hill v. Bub,
35 Neb. 534.
§131.]
PEIVATB WHITINGS.
185
an instrument lost before maturity shall be found would per-
haps dispense with this requirement.'
§ 131. Handwriting defined — Signature Iby mark. — By
the term " handwriting" is meant not only handwriting com-
monly so called, but every mark made upon paper, parchment
or similar substance by which the mental state of the person
writing is revealed to others.^ It is well settled that a mark
is equivalent to a signature for all purposes for which the latter
may be required,' even though the marksman is able to write.''
And generally, where a mark is affixed to a writing not re-
quiring attestation or subscription by Avitnesses, its execution
may be proved by the evidence of one who saw the party
write his mark or by the admission of the party himself.'
Though a subscribing witness may prove his own signature
by mark,^ ordinarily it is necessary that his signature should
be written by himself or some one for him ; for while the
handwriting of a subscribing witness may be proved in his
absence by ordinary methods,' his mark alone cannot be thus
1 Means v. Kimball, 35 Neb. 693;
Blooniington v. Smith, 23 N. E. Rep.
973.
2 Lyon V. Lyman, 9 Conn. 55 ; Com.
V. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 305 ; Rex
v. Cator, 4 Esp. 117.
STiedeman on R P. 876; Wil-
loughby V. Moulton, 47 N. H. 205;
Worden v. Van Gieston, 6 Dem. (N.
Y. Sur.) 337 ; State v. Byrd, 03 N. C.
624 ; Paisley v. Snipes, 2 Brev. (S. C.)
300; Osborne v. Cook, 11 Cush. 532;
Lord V. Lord, 58 N. H. 7 ; Chappee v.
Baptist Miss. Con., 10 Paige, 85. The
seal of a corporation is at common
law its signature, and, in the absence
of statute, it is not necessary that its
deed should be signed with the cor-
porate name. Sealing and delivery
are the only indispensable require-
ments to the valid execution of a
conveyance by a corporation. Ang.
& Ames, Corp., g 335 ; City v. Shaw-
han, 9 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 556 ;
Flint V. Clinton, 13 N. H. 430 ; Gor-
don V. Preston, 1 Watts (Pa.), 385;
Osborne v. Tunis, 1 Dutch. (N. J.) 633 ;
Tenney v. East Warren, etc. Co., 43
N. H. 348; Frankfort v. Anderson,
3 A. K. Marsh. 933; Beckwith v.
Windsor Co., 14 Conn. 594.
« Baker v. Denning, 8 A. & E. 94 ;
Barnard v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. 68 ; 1
Whart. Evid., g 696.
5 State V. Byrd, 93 N. C. 624;
Thompson v. Davitt, 59 Ga. 473;
Jones v. Hough, 77 Ala. 437 ; Eichel-
berger v. Siflford, 37 Md. 330 ; Robin-
son V. Robinson, 30 S. C. 567 ; Fogg
V. Dennis, 3 Humph. (Tenu.) 47;
Shank v. Butsch, 28 Ind. 19; Bal-
linger v. Davis, 29 Iowa, 513; San-
born V. Cole, 63 Vt. 590.
« Thompson v. Davitte, 59 Ga. 472.
'MoDermott v. McCormack, 4
Harr. (Del.) 543 ; Engles v. Bruing-
ton, 4 Yeates (Pa.), 345; Lyons v.
Holmes, 11 S. C. 429; Devereux v.
McMahan, 102 N. C. 284; Bussy v.
Whitaker, 2 Nott & McC. (S.' C.) 374;
Maine v. Ryder, 84 Pa. St. 217.
186 PBIVATE WEITINGS. [§§ 132, 133.
proved,' and is only valid a's a signature when, after having
made his mark, his name is aflBxed by some one in his presence
with his assent or by his request.^
§ 132. Production of writing, when necessary. — The
character of the evidence required in the proof of handwrit-
ing, the principles which govern its production and the com-
petency of the witnesses are essentially the same in criminal
and civil cases.' But this rule is to be considered in the light
of the doctrine that while a preponderance of evidence may
suffice in a civil cause in a prosecution for a crime, the pre-
sumption of innocence obtains and the prisoner must be given
the benefit of every reasonable doubt.* Under ordinary cir-
cumstances the document whose handwriting is in question
must be produced ; but where its production is impossible for
any valid reason, it will be dispensed with, and if its existence
is satisfactorily proved and its absence is accounted for, the
handwriting may be proved by a witness who saw the party
write, or who being familiar with his writing has seen the lost
instrument.^
§ 133. Proof by admissions of party. — That mode of prov-
ing handwriting which is the most simple and convincing is
by the testimony of the writer himself upon the witness stand
after he has inspected the writing.* If the execution of the
1 Watts V. Kilburn, 7 Ga. 356 ; 60 Tex. 506. Where the original
Carrier V. Hampton, Hired. L.(N. C.) writing is procurable it is error to
307 ; Gilliam v. Parkinson, 4 Rand, admit a photograph of ife Crane
(Va.) 325; Stevens v. Van Cleve, 4 v. Dexter, 5 Wash. St. 479. This
Wash. C. C. 862 ; Allen v. Mass, 37 rule was applied in the trial of an
Mo. 354. indictment for forgery where the
2 Jesse V. Parker, 6 Gratt. 57 ; Up- prosecution was unable to produce
church V. Upchurch, 16 B, Mon. 103 ; the writing alleged to have been
Lord V. Lord, 58 N. H. 7. forged. State v. Brackenridge, 67
3 De La Motte's Case, 31 How. St. Iowa, 304 ; State v. Shinbone, 46
Tr. 810 ; Hammond's Case, 3 Greenl. N. H. 497 ; Hahn v. State, 13 Tex.
38; 11 Am. Dec. 39. App. 883.
* See §g 5-7. e MoCaskle v. Amarine, 12 Ala. 17 ;
5 Abbot V. Coleman, 23 Kan, 250 ; Smith v. Prescott, 17 Me. 377 ; Mc-
Bigham v. Coleman, 71 Ga. 176 ; Cully v. Malcolm, 9 Humph. (Tenn.)
Bradley's Adm'r v. Long, 3 Strobh. 187 ; Eoyce v. Gazan, 76 Ga. 79; Lef-
(S. C.) 160; Bruce v. Crews, 39 Ga. ferts v. State, 49 N. J. Law, 26. A
544 ; Porter v. Wilson et al., 13 Pa. witness will not be allowed to testify
St. 641 ; Nuckols' Adm'r v. Jones, 8 that the party admitted the genuine-
Gratt. (Va.) 267 ; Houston v. BIy the, ness of his signature to another writ-
1 134.J
PKITATE WEITINQ8.
187
instrument is not denied, evidence of the genuineness of the
handwriting is not required, and an objection not taken at
the time is deemed waived and unavailable on appeal.^ So in
some of the states the denial of the authenticity of the instru-
ment is required to be in writing ^'verified by affidavit of the
party.' If he denies that he wrote or executed the instru-
ment, its genuineness may be proved by the testimony of any
competent witness who was present and saw him write it,* or
by evidence of his extra-judicial admissions made verbally or
by conduct that he executed it,^ whether made before or per-
haps after the action was begun." Such an admission is never
conclusive unless fraudulently made, or unless it was relied
and acted upon to the extent that it will constitute an estop-
pel in^paisP
§ 134. When proof of handwriting may be dispensed
with — Acknowledgments. — ^^If, as is the case in many states,
'deeds or other instruments are made by statute prima facie
evidence when duly acknowledged or recorded, proof of hand-
writing or execution by subscribing witnesses or others is
unnecessary.^
ing and that such signature is pre-
cisely similar to the one disputed.
Second Nat. Bank v. Wentzel, 151
Pa. St. 142.
1 Clark's Bx'rs v. Cochran, 3 Mart.
<La.) 353, 360 ; National Union Bank
of Swanton v. Marsh, 46 Vt. 443.
This is the statute law in many states.
Coler V. County (N. M., 1893), 27 Pac.
Eep. 619.
2 Smith V. King (Iowa, 1893), 55 N.
W. Rep. 88 ; Clark's Ex'rs v. Coch-
ran, 8 Mart. (La.) 353, 360 ; National
Union Bank of Swanton v. Marsh, 46
Vt.443.
SBestor v. Roberts, 58 Ala. 331;
Duncan v. Brown, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.)
186; Smith v. Elmert, 47 Wis. 479.
< Bayly v. Fourchy, 32 La. Ann.
136 ; Eobinson v. Arnet, 15 La. 362 ;
Com. V. Nef us, 135 Mass. 533 ; Bank
V. Marsh, 46 Vt. 443; Bowman v.
Sanborn, 35 N. H. 8,7.
5 Shaver v. Ehle, 16 Johns. (N. Y.)
301; State v. Byrd, 93 N. C. 634;
Glazier v. Streamer, 57 III. 91.
6 Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Hickman,
28 Pa. St. 318.
7 See ante, §§ 83-84 ; Salem Bank
V. Gloucester Bank, 17 Mass. 1, 37 ;
Helmsley v. Loader, 3 Campb. 450 ;
Bell V. Shields, 4 Harr. (19 N. J.) 93 ;
Cohen v. Teller, 93 Pa. St 133 ; Dow's
Ex'rs V. Spinney's Ex'rs, 39 Mo. 386 ;
Weed et al, v. Carpenter, 4 Wend.
(N. Y.) 319 ; Hammond v. Varian, 54
N. Y. 398.
8 " An acknowledgment regular on
its face makes the instrument evi-
dence without further proof. The
exact words of the statute need not
be followed; it is sufficient if the
meaning be clearly and fully ex-
pressed." Wickersliam v. Reeves, 1
Iowa, 417 ; Fenton v. Miller, 94 Mich.
204; Parroski v. Goldberg, 80 Wis.
188
PEIVITE WEITINGS.
[§ 135.
If, as is the case in this country, a deed must be properly-
acknowledged to obtain record, one which is not so ackno.wl-
edged will not be valid as against lona fide purchasers for
value and without notice. But an unrecorded deed, or one
improperly acknowledged," is always valid, as between the
parties and all others having actual or constructive notice
thereof,' and may be read in evidence in any action between
the parties or their privies on proof by witnesses.^
§135. Who may take acknowledgments. — Acknowledg-
ments are generally taken by notaries public, commissioners
or other officials designated by statute. A de facto official,*
or a deputy acting for and signing in the name of his princi-
pal,* and sometimes where he signs in his own name,' may
take an acknowledgment. So it has been held the fact that
an official who possesses statutory authority to take acknowl-
edgments is also an attesting witness,* a relative of or attor-
ney for the grantor,^ or is himself the grantee,' does not
399; Holbrook v. New Jersey Zino
Co., 57 N. Y. 634; N. Y. Phar. Ass'u
V. Tilden, 14 Fed. Eep. 740 ; Hough-
ton V. Jones, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 703. Of.
Blackman v. Riley, 63 Hun, 531 ; 38
' Abb. N. C. 126. A state grant under
seal is admissible as evidence with-
out acknowledgment where no stat-
ute requires it. Chicago, etc. Co. v.
Keegan, 31 N. E. Rep. 550. In the ab-
sence of statute an acknowledgment
does not dispense with proof of exe-
cution (Mullis V. Cairns, 5 Blackf.
(Ind.) 77), which may be shown by
the testimony of the party before
whom the acknowledgment was
made. Kidd's Adm'r v. Alexander,
1 Rand. (Va.) 456; Eichelberger v.
Sifford, 37 Md. 330.
I Bacon v. Railroad Co., 131 U. S.
258 ; Shotwell v. Harrison, 23 Mich.
410 ; Banbury v. Sheerin (S. D., 1893),
55 N. W. Rep. 733 ; Mankin v. Em-
mons, 47 Mo. 306 ; Ellison v. Wilson,
36 Vt. 67; Cable v. Cable, 146 Pa.
St. 451 ; Sicard v. Peters, 6 Pet. 136 ;
Forrester v. Parker, 14 Daly, 308;
Mann v. State, 46 lud. 883.
2 Shaffer v. Hahn, 111 N. C. 1;
Trenwith v. Smallwood, 111 N. C.
133 ; Beaman v. Whitney, 30 Me. 413.
3 Woodruff V. MoHarry, 56 111. 218;
Hamilton v. Pitcher, 53 Mo. 354.
< Cook V. Knott, 28 Tex. 85 ; Gib-
bons V. Gentry, 30 Mo. 468 ; Hope v.
Sawyer, 14 111. 354 ; Gordon v. Leech,
81 Ky. 229 ; Emmal v. Webb, 36 Cal.
203; Lynch v. Livingston, 8 Barb.
(N. Y.) 463.
5 Talbot V. Houser, 13 Bush (Ky.),
408; Touchard v. Crow, 20 Cal. 150;
McCraven v. McGuire, 33 Miss. 100 ;
Herndon v. Reed, 83 Tex. 647 ; Sum-
mer v. Mitchell, 29 Fla. 179; Coltrane
V. Lamb, 109 N. C. 209.
'6 Baird v. Evans, 58 Ga. 350.
7 Lynch v. Livingston, 6 N. Y. 433 ;<
Remington Co. v. Dougherty, 81 id.
474.
s Romanes v. Frazier, 16 Grant
(U. C), 97.
'Bennett v. Shipley, 83 Mo. 448.
Contra, Jones v. Porter, 59 Miss. 638 ;
Tavener v. Barrett, 31 W. Va 658.
§ 136.]
PEIVATE WEITINGS.
189
invalidate the acknowledgment. The majority of the cases
hold, however, that an acknowledgment taken by an official
who is personally interested is invalid.' An acknowledgment
received by a notary or other official act done out of his ter-
ritorial jurisdiction,^ or after his term of office has expired/
is invalid.
The venue should always appear in the body of the certifi-
cate,^ or in its caption or notarial seal,' though if it is not
stated the defect may be remedied by a reference to the in-
strument itself;^ and where no place is given, if the certificate
is otherwise regular and the power of the notary to take
acknowledgments is not disputed, it may be presumed that
he acted within his jurisdiction.'
§ 136. The certificate. — This, in the absence of fraud, duress
or a failure to obey some express statutory requirement, is
usually conclusive as to all facts stated in it,' and fraud, if
alleged, must be clearly shown.' The body of the certificate,"
1 Bank v. Radtke (Iowa, 1893), 54
N. W. Eep. 435 ; Davis v. Beazley, 75
"Va. 491 ; Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark.
420 ; Hogana v. Caruth, 18 Fla. 587 ;
Hammers v. Dole, 61 111. 807 ; Was-
son V. Connor, 54 Miss. 352 ; Browu
T. Moore, 38 Tex. 645 ; Dail v. Moore,
51 Mo. 589. The grantor cannot take
his own acknowledgment. Beaman
V. Whitney, 23 Me. 418; Davis v.
Beazley, supra; Freeman v. Person,
106 N. C. 251.
2 Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend.
(N. Y.) 91 ; Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carey, 54
Hun, 493; Hedges v. Ward, 15 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 106 ; Jones v. Reardon, 3
Md. Ch. 57 ; Hughes v. Wilkinson, 37
Miss. 482 ; Harris v. Burton, 4 Harr.
(Del.) 66.
3 Carlisle v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 542;
<3uimby v. Boyd, 8 Cal. 194; Gal-
braith v. Gallivan, 78 Mo. 453 ; Goody-
koontz V. Olsen, 54 Iowa, 174.
■iWillard v. Cramer, 36 Iowa, 23;
Dunlap V. Dougherty, 20 111. 397.
sChiniquy v. Catholic Bishop, 41
IlL 148; Adams v. Medsker, 35 W.
Va. 138 ; Sidwell v. Birney, 69 Mo.
144; Wright v. Wilson, 17 Mich. 192.
STruIick v. Peoples, 1 Ga. 3;
Brooks V. Chaplin, 3 Vt 281 ; Fuhr-
man v. London, 13 S. & R. 386.
7 See post, §§ 231, 233 ; Morrison v.
White, 16 La. Ann. 100 ; Sidwell v.
Birney, 69 Mo. 144; Carpenter v.
Dexter, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 513 ; Douglas
V. Carmean, 49 Kan. 674 ; Chamber-
lain V. Pybas, 81 Tex. 511.
8 Oppenheimer v. Wright, 100 Pa.
St. 569; Hill v. Bacon, 43 111. 477;
Smith V. McGuire, 67 Ala. 34 ; Allen
V. Lenoir, 53 Miss. 321 ; Cox v. Gill,
88 Ky. 669 ; Tooker v. Sloan, 30 N. J.
Eq. 94; Hitt v. Jenks, 123 U. S. 301 ;
Young V. Duval, 109 U. S. 573. Cf.
Jackson v. Caii-ns, 20 Johns. fK Y.)
300 ; Davis v. Agnew, 67 Tex. 310
Linsley v. Brown, 13 Conn. 192
Marsh v. Mitchell, 26 N. J. Eq. 497
Russell V. Seminary, 75 111. 337
Cover V. Manaway, 115 Pa. St. 345
Greene v. Godfrey, 44 Me. 35.
9 Stevens v. Hampton, 46 Mo. 104 ;
Meyer v. Gassett, 38 Ark. 377, and
cases in last note.
10 Trustees v. McKechnie, 90 N. Y.
618; Brown v. Farrar, 3 Ohio, 140;
Wright v. Bundy, 11 Ind. 398 ; Evans
190
PRIVATE WETTINGS.
[§ 136.
its official seal ^ or signature ^ must show the character of the
official certifying to the acknowledgment, and where this ap-
pears he will be presumed to have possessed adequate author-
ity and to have acted within his jurisdiction. But when his
official character does not appear it may be shown by extrinsic
evidence.' But generally if a form or mode of acknowledg-
ment is prescribed by statute, a substantial, if not a strict,
compliance will be required to be observed both by the notary
and by the party executing the conveyance,* though the omis-
sion of the date,' or of immaterial words,^ the insertion of
those which are vague and equivocal,'' redundant and super-
fluous^ or ungrammaticaP will not vitiate a certificate other-
V. Lee, 11 Nev. 194 ; Baze v. Arper,
6 Minn. 320 ; Carpenter v. Dexter, 8
Wall. 513 ; Belo v. Mayer, 79 Mo. 67.
1 Harding v. Curtis, 45 111. 253.
Where a statute prescribes the form
of the oflScial seal it must be strictly
followed (Holbrook v. Nichol, 36 111.
161; Bail v. Moore, 51 Mo. 589;
Hewitt V. Morgan (Iowa, 1893), 55
N. W. Rep. 478 ; Fleming v. Richard-
son, 13 La. Ann. 414 ; Buel v. Irvin,
24 Mich. 145 ; Pitts v. Seavey (Iowa,
1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 480 ; Meskimen
V. Day, 35 Kan. 46), or the deed will
not be received in evidence. Where
no special form of sealing is required,
its omission or the use of a scroll or
other informal device is not mate-
rial. Limberger v. Tidwell, 104 N. C.
506; Harrison v. Simmons, 55 Ala.
510; Equitable M. Co. v. Kemp-
ner, 84 Tex. 102; Cole v. Wright, 70
Ind. 179 ; Commissioners v. Glass, 17
Ohio, 342; Summer v. Mitchell, 39
Fla. 179 ; Mitchmer v. Holmes (Mo.,
1898), 20 N. W. Rep. 1070.
- Summer v. Mitchell, 29 Fla. 179 ;
Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R. 368 ;
Johnson v. Haines, 2 Ohio, 278 ; Car-
lisle v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 542.
3 Shults V. Moore, 1 McLean (U. S.),
520 ; Bennet v. Paine, 7 Watts, 334 ;
Vauness v. Bank,- 13 Pet. 21; Scott
V. Gallagher, 11 S. & R. 347. See
post, § 220.
<McDaniel v. Needham, 61 Tex*
269 ; Knighton v. Smith, 1 Oreg. 276 ;
Buell V. Irwin, 24 Mich. 145 ; Jaco-
way V. Gault, 80 Ark. 190 ; Rogers v.
Adams, 66 Ala. 600 ; Dewey v. Cam-
pau, 4 Mich. 565; Wickersham v.
Beeves, 1 Iowa, 413; Trammel v.
Thurmond, 17 Ark. 303.
5 Huxley V. Harrold, 63 Mo. 616;
Rackleflf v. Norton, 19 Me. 374;
Kelly V. Rosenstock, 45 Md. 389;
Yorty V. Paine, 63 Wis. 154; Brooks
V. Chaplin, 3 Vt. 381.
« Todd V. Jones, 33 Iowa, 146 ; Hiles
V. La Flesh, 59 Wis. 465 ; Magness v.
Arnold, 31 Ark. 103; Wilooxon v.
Osborn, 77 Mo. 631 ; Solyer v. Rom-
anet, 53 Tex. 563 ; Harrington v. Fish,
10 Mich. 415 ; Hartshorn v. Dawson,
79 111. 108; Gorman v. Stanton, 5
Mo. App. 585 ; Gordon v. Leech, 81
Ky. 229 ; Donahue v. Mills, 41 Ark.
421.
'Gray v. Kauffman, 83 Tex, 65;
Hurt v. McCartney, 18 111. 139; Bel-
cher V. Weaver, 46 Tex. 393.
s Tourville v. Pierson, 39 III. 446 ;
Bradford v. Dawson, 3 Ala. 203;
Thompson v. Johnson, 84 Tex. 548 ;
Gray v. KaufiEraan, 83 id. 65 ; Nelson
V. Graff, 44 Mich. 433; Whitney v.
Arnold, 10 Cal. 531.
9 Frostburg, etc. v. Brace, 51 Md,
508.
§ 136.] PRIVATE -WErriNGS. 191
wise complete and regular.^ A notary public may amend his
incorrect certificate, and the amendment will operate as of
the date of the acknowledgment.
The taking of an acknowledgment is a ministerial act, and
in a proper case a mandamus will lie to compel any official
to correct his clerical mistakes,^ though it seems that he will
not be allowed to do so after he is out of office.' If the offi-
cial is dead or cannot be found, or if his term of office has ex-
pired, the aid of equity may be invoked to correct the mistake
by reforming the certificate of acknowledgment so that it will
conform to the facts in the case.*
The omission of recitals of essential facts, such as the per-
sonal appearance of the grantor, or his name, or the personal
acquaintance of the notary with him, as tending to identify
him, or the fkct that he acknowledges or executes the deed,
may invalidate the certificate as evidence of execution, for
these data cannot be supplied by parol evidence.^ But an in-
valid certificate of acknowledgment does not necessarily de-
stroy the value of the writing as evidence, for the defective
acknowledgment will then be regarded as an attestation, and
the officer may prove the deed as a subscribing witness." On
iSee, also, Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Ark. 365; Gilbraith v. Gallivan, 78
Mo. 390 ; Durst v. Daugherty, 81 Tex. Mo. 452 ; Johnson v. Taylor, 60 Tex.
650 ; Sharp v. Hamilton, 13 N. J. L. 360. Contra, Miller v. Powell, 53 Mo.
109 ; Smith v. Williams, 38 Miss. 48 ; 852 ; Hand v. Weidner, 151 Pa. St.
Dundas v. Hitchcock, 12 How. (U. S.) 363 ; Stodolka v. Novotus (III, 1893),
356 ; Coombes v. Thomas, 57 Tex. 33 N. E. Rep. 534.
331; Ives v. Kimball, 1 Mich. 308. 5 Frost v. Cattle Co., 81 Tex. 505;
So the fact that the certificate prop- Ennor v. Thompson, 46 111. 315 ; Rol-
erly executed is on a separate piece lins v. Meuager, 33 W. Va. 461 ; Will-
o£ paper and pasted to the convey- iams v. Baker, 71 Pa, St. 476 ; Leck-
ance is not material. Schram v. man v. Harding, 65 111. 505 ; Ridgely
Gentry, 63 Tex. 383. v. Howard, 3 Har. & McH. (Md.)
2 Hutchinson v. Ainsworth, 63 Cal, 331 ; Hayden v. Westcott, 11 Conn.
386 ; Fall v. Roper, 3 Head (Tenn.), 139 ; Newman v. Samuels, 17 Iowa,
385 ; Ralston v. Moore, 83 Ky. 571 ; 538 ; Jacoway v. Gault, 30 Ark. 190 ;
Skinner V. Fulton, 39 111. 484 ; Jordan Gaines t. Catron, 1 Humph. (Tenn.)
v. Corey, 3 Ind. 385; Elliott v. Peir- 514; Fryer v. Rockefeller, 63 N. Y.
gol, 1 Pet 338; Miller v. Powell, 53 268. And see §g 305, 209.
Mo. 253. 6 Hewitt v. Morgan (Iowa, 1893), 55
3 Gilbraith v. Gallivan, 78 Mo. 452. N. W. Rep. 478; Carlisle v. Carlisle,
4 Cressena v. Sowers, 26 W. N. C. 78 Ala, 542 ; Torrey v. Forbes, 94 id.
133; Simpson v. Montgomery, 35 135; March, Bank v. Harrison, 39
192 PEIVATB WEITINGS. [§§ 137, 13S.
the other hand, a valid certificate is intended merely to evi-
dence the due execution of the deed, and if the deed is inop-
erative because of some material deficiency, it will not be
validated by statements or admissions in the certificate.'
§ 137. Impeaching the certificate. — The certificate of ac-
knowledgment is a constituent part of the deed, and its recitals
are notice to and are conclusively binding upon all who may
have actual or constructive notice of the deed itself.^ Between
the immediate parties the recitals in the certificate may be
impeached for fraud.' So if the recitals that the notary was
personally acquainted with the grantor, that the latter person-
ally appeared before him and acknowledged the deed, or, in
the case of a married woman's acknowledgment, that she v/as
privily examined,* are false, actual fraud exists which will in-
validate the certificate as evidence in behalf of the original
grantor or grantee or any subsequent party having knowledge
of the fraud.' "When, however, the grantor has ratified the
deed by the acceptance of the purchase-money, or the grantee
has entered into possession, either would be estopped to plead
the invalidity of the acknowledgment against the other or
-against some third person who had no notice of the fraud and
had parted with value relying on the recitals in the acknowl-
edgment.'
§ 138. Proof hy suhscribing witnesses. — The execution of
the instrument which has been attested only must be proved
Mo. 433 ; Hutton v. Weber, 17 N. Y. stitutes neither record nor notice."
8.463; Sharp v. Hamilton, 13 N.J. SeeAnderson's Law Diet., under "Ac-
L. 109; Grant v. Oliver, 91 Cal. 158. knowledgment." Paxton v. Marshall,
See post, g 138. 18 Fed. Rep. 301; Young v. Duvill,
1 White V. Connelly, 105 N. C. 65; 109 U. S. 577; McMuUen v. Eagan,
Turner v. Connelly, 105 N. C. 73. 21 W. Va. 344.
2Tiedenian on R. P. 810; Singer s Davis v. Jenkins (Ky., 1893), 20
Mfg. Co. V. Rook, 84 Pa. St 442 ; S. W. Rep. 283 ; Eyster v. Hathaway,
Smith V. McGuire, 67 Ala. 34. 50 111. 522 ; Williams v. Baker, 71 Pa.
3 See post, § 208. St. 483 ; Hartley v. Fresh, 6 Tex. 208 ;
* " In the case of a wife the certifi- Grider v. Mortgage Co. (Ala., 1893),
cate must show she was examined 12 S. Rep. 775 ; Holt v. Moore, 37 Ark.
separate and apart from her husband; 148; Johnson v. Wallace, 53 Miss,
that she was of full age ; that the 331 ; Marsh v. Mitchell, 36 N. J. Eq.
contents of the deed were first made 497 ; White v. Graves, 107 Mass. 325.
known to her, and that she acted of ^ Jiut L. Ins. Co. v. Corey, 135 N. Y.
her own free will. Otherwise, though 336.
-recorded, her acknowledgment con-
§ 138.] PEIVATE WEITINGS. 193
by the production of the subscribing witnesses or of one of
them in case he can testify to the circumstances of the attesta-
tion and prove all necessary facts concerning execution.'
A subscribing witness is a witness who either was present
and saw the act of execution or to whom the party subse-
quently acknowledged the execution, and who in either case,
at the party's request, express or implied, attached his signa-
ture to attest the genuineness of the party's signature.^
This rule is not only applicable to such writings as deeds and
wills which are required by statute to be acknowledged and
attested,^ but is also extended to every writing that has act-
ually been attested.* So though a party is now a competent
witness and maj' testify to the genuineness of his own signa-
ture, the production of the subscribing witnesses is not, it
seems, thereby dispensed with,^ even where the party is shown
to have admitted out of court that he executed the instru-
ment.'
The exceptions to the rule which requires the proof of an
attested writing by the production of subscribing witness
must now be considered. In the first place, all attested writ-
ings over thirtj^ years old, which are free from alterations
and come from proper custody, are said, because of their an-
tiquity, to prove themselves, and the witnesses need not be
produced, though living.'
1 Jackson v. La Grange, 19 Johns, avdson, etc. Co. v. Jones (Ala., 1891),.
336 ; Turnipseed v. Hawkins, 1 Mc- 9 S. Rep. 276.
Cord, 272; Dau v. Brown, 4 Cow. ^ Brigliani v. Palmer, 8 Allen'
433. (Mass.), 450.
2 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 569a; Mel- 6 Abbot v. Plumbe, 1 Dong. 216 ; :
Cher V. Flanders, 40 N. H. 139; Hus- Rex v. Harrington, 4 M. & S. 358;.
ton V. Ticknor, 99 Pa. St. 238 ; Henry v. Bishop, 2 Wend. 575 ; Fox:
Chaplain v. Briscoe, 19 Miss. 272; v. Reid, 3 Johns. 477. But where
Marable v. Meyer, 78 Ga. 60 ; Hollen- the execution of the writing is only
back V. Fleming, 6 Hill, 304; Paw- collaterally and not directly in-
tucket V. Ballou, 15 R. I. 58; volved, proof by subscribing wit-
Gallagher V. Kilkeary, 29 111. App. nesses will not be required. Curtis
415. V. Belknap, 6 Washb. 433; Skinner
3 Post, § 269. V. Brigham, 126 MaSs. 132 ; Com. v.
* Warner v. B. & O. R. R., 31 Ohio Castles, 9 Gray, 121.
St. 265 ; Hudson v. Puett, 86 Ga. 341 ; ■ See § 105 ; Jackson v. Christraan,
Barber v. Terrell, 54 Ga. 146 ; Leibe 4 Wend. 277, 282, 283. Where bqth
V. Hebersmith, 3 S. Rep. 283 ; Rich- subscribing witnesses are dead, proof
13
194
PRIVATE WEITINGS.
[§ 138.
The second class of exceptions comprises those cases where,
on account of physical causes or mental incapacity or subse-
quently-acquired interest, the subscribing witness is unable or
incompetent to testify. The proof by producing a subscribing
witness may be dispensed with if the subscribing witness has
become insane,' or has died,^ or is shown to have left the state,'
or has become disqualified because of interest* or infamy,^ or
the party is unable to find him after a diligent search,* or he
was incompetent when he signed as a witness." Other proof is
admissible where the witness denies or forgets that he was
present at the execution.'
If it is sought to dispense with proof by subscribing wit-
nesses because they cannot be found, the party must satisfy
the court that he has made an honest and diligent search for
them in places where they would probably be found and has
inquired as to their whereabouts of acquaintances and rel-
atives who would most likely be best informed." Where a
of execution raises a presumption
that all proper details were strictly
complied with. Dupree v. Bupree,
45 Ga. 415-442; Ela v. Edwards,
supra; Chaflfee v. Baptist Miss. Oon.,
10 Paige, 25 ; Fathere v. Lawrence,
33 Miss. 623 ; Eliot v. Eliot, 10 Allen,
357 ; Barnes v. Barnes, 66 Me. 286 ;
Clark V. Dounorant, 10 Leigh, 23.
' Dewey v. Dewey, 1 Met. (Mass.)
349.
2 Martin v. Bowie (S. C. 1893), 15
S. E. Eep. 736.
3 Troeder v. Hyams, 37 N. E. Rep.
775; Homer v. Wallis, U Mass. 309;
Sluby V. Chaplin, 4 Johns. 461 ; Dun-
bar V. Marden, 1.3 N. H. 311.
''Hamilton v. Marsden, 6 Binn. 45.
6 Jones V. Mason, 3 Stra. 833.
6 Jackson v. Biiton, 11 Johns. 64;
Galleglier v. Association (Pa,, 1893),
24 Atl. Eep. 115.
7 Bank v. Root, 2 Met 522; Nelins
V. Buckell, 1 Hayw. 19. See, also, 1
Greenl. on Evid., § 573, and cases
cited; 1 Whart. Evid., g§ 705-40, and
cases; Smith v. Jones, 6 Rand. 83;
Hawes v. Humphrey, 9 Pick. 357
Jauncy v. Thorne, 3 Barb. Ch. 40
Dean v. Dean, 1 Will. (Vt) 740
Greenough v. Greenough, 11 Pa. St
489; Vernon v. Kirk, 30 Pa. St 318
Hoijkins v. Albertson, 3 Bay, 484
Hopkins v. De GrafiEenreid, 3 Bay,
187 ; Collins v. Elliot, 1 Harr. & J. 3
Jackson v. La Grange, 19 Johns. 28S
289; Sears v. Dillingham, 13 Mass.
358, 361, 363 ; Miller v. Miller, 2 Bing.
N. C. 76; Jones v. Arterborn, 11
Humph. 97; Patten v. Tallraan, 37
Me. 29 ; Verdier v. Verdier, 8 Rich.
(S. C.) 135; Barker v. McFcrran, 26
Pa. St 211 ; Jackson v. Luquere, 5
Cow. 221.
sWhitaker v. Salisbury, 15 Pick.
534; Dewey v. Dewey, 1 Met 349;
New Haven Co. Bank v. Mitchell, 15
Conn. 206 ; Wynii v. Small, 102 N. C
133 ; Baeder v. Jennings, 40 Fed. Rep.
199.
0 Miller v. Miller, 3 Bing. N. C. 76;
James v. Farnell, 1 Turn. & R 417;
Troeder v. Hyams (Mass.. 1890), 27
N. E. Eep. 775. Where there are sev-
;§ 139.] PEIYATE WKITINQS. 195
writing which is alleged to have been exeeated by one party
is introduced in evidence by his adversary upon notice, proof
by the subscribing witnesses may be dispensed with where the
execution is not denied by the other, upon the ground that
the party demanding its introduction admits its execution and
validity by claiming an interest or title under it.' "Witnesses
to deeds are intended merely to attest their execution, and
cannot, like witnesses to wills, express opinions upon the men-
tal capacity of the grantor.^
§ 139. Proof by witnesses acquainted with party's hand-
writing.— A person, even though he can neither read nor
write,' who is personally acquainted with the handwriting in
question, is a competent witness for or against its authentic-
ity.* In case the knowledge was acquired solely for the pur-
pose of testifying, then he is not a competent witness. The
testimony of such a person is not secondary evidence as
compared with the evidence of the alleged writer, nor is it
rendered inadmissible because the latter, being in court, denies
the handwriting;' though it is clear that such testimony,
unless positive and uncontradictory, would not carry much
weight in a reasonable riiind against the declaration of the
party himself that the writing in dispute is not his.
The witness' acquaintance and familiarity with the writing
may have been acquired by seeing the party write in circum-
stances where he had an opportunity of observing his hand-
writing and becoming acquainted with the peculiarities of his
penmanship. Where a witness believes he can identify the
eral subscribing witnesses, the ab- Bruyn v. Russell, 52 Hun, 17 ; Salazar
senceof all must be accounted for. v. Taylor (Col., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep.
Kelsey v. Hanmer, 18 Conn. 811. 369; Succession of Marivant, 45 La.
iBradshaw v. Bennett, 1 M. & Ann. 307; Stoddard v. Hill (S.C, 1893),
Rob. 143 ; Benton v. Baxley (Ga., 17 S. E. Rep. 138 ; Board of Trustees
1893), 15 S. E. Rep. 830 ; Hanna v. v. Misenheimer, 78 111. 33 ; Tome v.
Davis, 113 Mo. 599; Bell v. Chaytor, Parkersburgh R R. Co., 39 Md. 36;
1 C. & K. 162. If the party alleged Herrick v. Swomby, 56 Md. 439, 460 ;
the deed to be a forgery, its execution Mudd v. Suckermore, 5 A. & E. 703
must be proved by the one claiming (31 E. C. L.) ; Snyder v. McKeever,
under it. Vaugh v. McElroy, 83 Ga. 10 Bradw. (111.) 188; Hynes v. McDer-
687. mott, 83 N. Y. 41.
2 Dean v. Fuller, 40 Pa. St. 474. » Williams v. Dean (Tex, 1894), 24
8 Foye V. Patch, 132 Mass. 105. S. W. Rep. 536.
< Wilson v. Van Leer, 127 Pa. St. 371 ;
196
PRIVATE WEITINGS.
[§ 139.
writing he may testify to its character, though he may have
seen the party write once only,' and that subsequent to the
date of the disputed writing.^ Doubtless the circumstance
that a witness has often seen the party write will add to the
value of his evidence ; but this fact and the character of the
occasion or period when he saw him write, though they may
affect the credibility and weight of his evidence, are wholly
immaterial as respects his competency as a witness.'
A witness familiar with the penmanship of a part3^'s surname
may testify to his full name,^ while one unacquainted with the
individual signatures of the members of a firm may testify to
the firm signature if acquainted with it.' In the second place,
personal acquaintance with the party's handwriting may be
acquired by having carried on a correspondence with him.'
'Egan V. Murray (Iowa, 1890), 45
N. W. Rep. 563 ; Hopper's Adtn'r v.
Ashley, 15 Ala. 457; Woodfora v.
McCleoahan, 4 Gilm. (9 111.) 85;
Smith V. Walton, 8 Gill (Md.), 77;
Com. V. Nef us. 135 Mass. 533 ; North
V. McConnell, 42 Mich. 473; Rideout
V. Newton, 17 N. H. 71 ; Jackson v.
Van Dusen, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 144;
McNair v. Com., 36 Pa. St. 388;
Means v. Means, 7 Rich. (S. C.) 533 ;
Demouheiin v. Walker, 4 Baxt.
(Tenn.) 199; Pepper v. Barnett, 33
Gratt. (Va.) 405 ; Succession of Mar-
rant, 45 La. Ann. 307.
3 Keith T. Lathrop, 10 Cush. (Mass.)
553 ; Railroad Co. v. Hickman, 38 Pa.
St. 318.
'In these rases the witness often
eaw the party write : Royce v. Cazan,
76 Ga. 79 ; Bruyn v. Russell, 53 Hun.
17; Long v. Little, 119 III, 600;
Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38 ; State
V. Stair, 87 Mo. 368 ; State v. Gay, 94
N. C. 814 ; Cook v, Smith, 1 Vroom
(30 N. J.), 387 ; State v. Hooper, 3
Bailey (S. C), 37; Hopkins v. Meg-
guire, 35 Me. 78; Lachance v. Loeb-
lein, 15 Mo. App. 460 ; Hoitt v. Moul-
toQ, 21 N. H, 58G ; Donoghue v. Peo-
ple, 6 Park. C. 0. (N. Y.) 120 ; State v.
Anderson, 3 Bailey (S. C), 567 ; Pear-
son V. MoDaniel, 63 Ga. 100; Sill v.
Reese, 47 Cal. 294 ; Salazar v. Taylor
(Col,, 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 839 ; Bevan v.
Atlanta Bank, 39 111. 577 ; Williams
V. Dean (Tex., 1894), 34 S. W. Rep.
536.
4 Lewis V. Sapio, 1 M. & W. 39.
» Gordon v. Price, 10 Ired. (N. C.)
385; Brigham v. Peters, 1 Gray
(Mass.), 385.
6 Gould V. Jones, 1 W. Bl. 384, by
Lord Mansfield, in 1761 ; Ferrers v.
Shirley, Fitzgibbon, 195 (in 1763). In
Wade V. Boughton, 3 V. & B., Lord
Eldon, while confirming the doctrine,
says the comparison of a single let-
ter will never do for commitment.
See McKeon v. Barnes, 108 Mass.
344; Campbell v. Woodstock Iron
Co., 83 Ala. 351; Pearson & Co. v.
McDaniel, 63 Ga. 100; Russell v.
CoflSn, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 143; Empire
Manuf. Co. v. Stuart, 46 Mich. 482;
Gartrell v. Stafford, 13 Neb. 545;
Com. V. Smith, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 567;
Clark V. Freeman, 35 Pa. St 133;
Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Manning, 3 Col.
224; Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419;
Chaffee v. Taylor, 3 Allen (Mass.),
5y8 ; Southern Exp. Co. v. Thornton,
§ 139.]
PEIVATE WEITINGS.
197
The ground upon which evidence of familiarity with hand-
writing acquired by a correspondence with the party is ad-
mitted is that the conduct of the party is equivalent to the
admission that the letters introduced were written by him.
If the party made statements or gave instructions in his letter
which were intended prima facie to be acted upon, and if it
is shown that the recipient relied upon and was induced to
act, and particularly if his action consists of further communi-
cations or of business transactions with him, and which are
subsequently referred to in other letters, it will be very rea-'
sonable to presume that the documents were in the hand-
writing of the party .^ The personal acquaintance may have
been gained by the witness having seen "- documents which the
party admits to have been written by him; as when he holds
deeds of conveyances in which the party is a grantor.'
Again, the acquaintance with the writing may have been
acquired by the witness from actual personal contact with
41 Miss. 316; Whitley v. Gaylord, 1
Jones' L. (N. C.) 94; United States
V. Simpson, 3 P. & W. (Pa.) 437;
Parker v. Amazon Ins. Co., 34 Wis.
863; Com. v. Coe, 110 Mass. 481;
Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 420;
Rumph V. State (Ga., 1893), 16 S. E.
Rep. 104; Rogers v. Tyley (III, 1893),
32 N. E. Eep. 693.
1 Murieta v. Wolfhagen, 3 C. & K.
744 (61 E. C. L.); Greaves v. Hunter,
2 C. & P. 477 (12 E. C. L.) ; Tharpe v.
Gisburne, 3 C. & P. 21 (13 E. C. L.);
Rex V. Slaney, 5 C. & P. 313 (24
E. C. L. 1832),, Drew v. Prior, 5 M. &
G. 264; Putnam v. Wadley, 40 111.
346; Mines v. Perry, 113 Mass. 274;
Gibson V. Trowbridge Co. (Ala., 1893),
n S. Rep. 365.
"It is necessary that the witness
should have seen the papers long
enough to have become familiar
with the penmanship. United States
V. Johnson, 1 Cranoh (U. S.), 371 ;
Stone V. Thomas, 12 Pa. St. 269.
'Woodman v. Dana, 52 Me. 9;
Johnson v. Daverne, 19 Johns. Ch.
134 ; Ennor v. Hodson, 38 111. App.
445; First Nat. Bank v. Hovell, 24
111. App. 594; Durnell v. Sowden
(Utah, 1887), 14 Pac. Rep. 3844 Smith
V. Caswell (Tex., 1887), 4 S. W. Eep.
8-18; Gordon v. Price, 10 Ired. L.
(N. C.) 885; Hopper v. Ashley, 15
Ala. 457 ; Gibson v. Trowbridge (Ala.,
1893), 11 S. Rep. 365. Where the
document has not been acknowl-
edged, the circumstances should be
such that the party is estopped by it.
Allen V. State, 3 Humph, (Tenn.)
367 ; Hammond v. Varian, 54 N. Y.
398 ; Talbott v. Hines, 33 N. E. Rep.
788; Tucker v. Kellogg (Utah, 1892)!
28 Pac. Rep. 870 ; Berg v. Peterson,
53 N. W. Rep. 37 ; 49 Minn. 430. The
burden of proving the acknowledg-
ment or estoppel is upon the party
introducing the writing. Putnam v.
Wadley, 40 111. 846 ; Bank v. Marsh,
46 Vt 443; Brigham v. Peters, 1
Gray, 139; Bank v. Wenzel, 151 Pa.
St. 142. The acknowledgment of an
attorney for the party will not suffice.
Goldsmith v. Bane, 8 N. J. L. 87;
Greaves v. Hunter, 3 C. & P. 477.
198 PEIVATE WEITINGS. [§ 139^.
I-
liim in commercial, social or professional relations. Thus, a
corresponding clerk or a book-keeper maj'' testify to the hand-
writing of one whose letters or books pass through his hands,'
but in the ordinary course of business only.'^ One member of a
family is a competent witness in the case of family correspond-
ence.' An executor may testify to the handwriting of his
testator,* or an attorney to that of his client.'
So where the authenticity of official records and documents
or the handwriting of officials is in question, any person who
has been in the habit of examining them while they were in
official custody and through whose hands they have passed in
the performance of private or official duty may testify to the
genuineness of the handwriting.^
§ 139a. Mode of examining witnesses as to handwriting. —
A witness to handwriting may be cross-examined as to the
source of his knowledge, and if he has any knowledge ac-
quired under the circumstances above outlined its deficiency
or inexactness, though detracting from the weight of his evi-
dence, is no objection to his competency. Thus, though his
actual belief that the writing in dispute is genuine may be a
material element in the credibility of his testimony, yet the
fact that he cannot swear from his own knowledge that he
believes it to be the handwriting of the party is not an ob-
jection.' If he is not cross-examined he need not state the
1 Smith V. Sainsbury, 5 C. & B. 198 « Armstrong v. Fargo, 8 Hun, 175;
(24 E. C, L.); Eeid v. Hodgson, 1 Rogers v. State, 11 Tex. App. 608;
Cranch (U. S.), 491 ; Titford V. Knott, Finch v. Gridley's Ex'rs, 35 Wend.
2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 211 ; Murieta v. (N. Y.) 469 ; Rogers v. Ritter, 12 Wall.
Wolfhagen, 3 C. & K. 744 (61 E. C. L.) ; (U. S.) 317 ; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush.
Bruyn v. Russell, 53 Hun, 317. (Mass.) 295-301 ; Sill v. Reese, 47 Cal
2 Assignees of Desbrow v. Farrow, 294 ; Board v. Misenheimer, 78 111. 22 ;
8 Rich. (S. C.) 382. Brown v. Lincoln, 47 N. H. 468 ; Doe v.
'Robinson Consolidated Mining Roe, 31 Ga 593-599; D u can v. Beard, '
Co. V. Craig, 4 N. Y. St Rep. 478; 2 N. & MoC. (& C.) 400; Goddard v.
Tuthill V. Rainy, 98 N. C. 513 ; Moody Gloninger, 5 Watts (Pa.), 209 ; Swei-
V. Rowell, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 490 ; Slay- gart, 8 Pa. St. 436 ; Taylor v. Cook, 8
maker v. Wilson, 1 P. & W. (Pa.) 216. Price, 650 ; Jones v. Huggins, 1 Dev.
4 Sharp V. Sharp et al., 3 Leigh L. (N. C.) 323; Vickroy v. Skelly,
(Va.), 349. 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 3T3; Turnipseed v.
SFitzwater Peerage Case, 10 CI. & Hawking, 1 McC. (S. C.)272; Thomas:
Fin. 193; Costello v. Crowell, 139 v. Horlocker, 1 Call. (Pa.) 14.
Mass. 588; Riggsv. Powell (111., 1893)^ U'\ister v, Jenkins, 30 Ga, 476;
32 N. E. Rep. 483. Bernheim v. Ayer, 36 N. H. 183 ; Hop-^
§ 139ffl.]
PEIVATE WKITING8.
199
source of his knowledge; for if he actually swears that he is
acquainted with the handwriting it will be presumed that he
is competent to testify.^ Merely to testify that the writing is
that of the party is not enough. He must testify that he
knows the handwriting of the party ,^ and if he does not know
it, it is within the province of the judge to reject him as incom-
petent.'
A person disqualified to testify because of interest against
the representative of a decedent may be a witness to the hand-
writing of the deceased, though he cannot testify that he saw
deceased sign a paper which has been destroyed.* On the
other hand, the fact that a witness is interested has been held
to render him wholly incompetent as a witness to handwrit-
ing.'
The witness, if competent, will be permitted to refresh his
memory before the trial, by referring to the writings from
which his knowledge has been acquired.^ On the other hand,
per V. Ashley, 15 Ala. 457 ; Johnson
V, Daverne, 19 Johns. 134 ; Talbott v.
Hedges (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep.
788 ; Massey v. Farmers' Bank, 104 111.
327; Smythe v. Caswell, 67 Tex. 567;
Lyon V. Lyman, 9 Conn. 55 ; Holmes
V. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 150 ; Guyette
V. Bolton, 46 Vt. 228; Com. v. An-
drews, 143 Mass.- 23; Nagee v. Os-
borne, 32 N. Y. 669; Rumph v. State
(Ga., 1893), 16 S. E. Rsp. 104; Smith
V. Walton, 8 Gill (Md.), 77 ; State v.
Stair, 87 Mo. 268 ; Clark v. Freeman,
25 Pa. St. 413.
1 Henderson v. Bank, 1 1 Ala. 855 ;
Moody V. Rowell, 17 Pick. (Mass.)
490 ; Salazar v. Taylor, 33 Pac. Rep.
369 (Col^., 1893); Empire Co. v.
Stuart, 46 Mich. 483 ; Wittier v. Gould,
8 Watts (Pa.), 485 ; Bank v. Lierman,
5 Neb. 247 ; Bulen v. Granger, 39 N.
W. Rep. 718; Goodhue v. Bartlett, 5
McLean, 185; Sartor v. Bullinger,
59 Tex. 411 ; Stoddard v. Hill (S. C,
1893), 17 S. B. Rep. 138.
2 Boyle V. Coleman, 13 Barb. (N. Y.)
43 ; Richardson v. Stringfellow (Ala.,
1894), 14 S. Rep. 283; Bate v. Peo-
ple, 8 III. 644 ; Kinney v. Flynn, 3 R.
I. 819 ; Watson v. McAllister, 7 Mart
368 ; Carrier v. Hampton, 11 Ired. L.
(N. C.) 307; Mapes v. Seales, 27 Tex.
845; Hann v. State, 13 Tex. App.
383 ; Slaymaker v. Wilson, 1 T. & W.
316.
3 See cases supra, and Talbott v.
Hedges, 33 N. E. Rep. 788 (Ind., 1893).
^ Daniels v. Foster, 36 Wis. 686;
Hussey v. Kirkwood, 95 N. C. 63.
SRideoufc V. Newton, 17 N. H. 71 ;
Robinson v. Robinson, 30 S. C. 567 ;
Kirksey v. Kirksey, 41 Ala. 626;
Truitt's Estate, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 16.
eSee post, g§ 337, 338 ; United States
V. Larned, 4 Cranch, 313 ; Redford t.
Peggy, 6 Rand. (Va.) 316; MoNair v.
Com., 36 Pa. St. 388 ; Thomas v. State,
103 Ind. 419 ; Chester v. Armstrong,
66 Md. 113; Massey v. Bank, 104 III.
337 ; Worth v. McConuell, 43 Mich.
478; Smith v. Walton, 8 Gill (Md.),
77 ; Bank v. Jacobs, 1 P. & W. (Pa.)
161, 179.
200 PEIVATE WEITINGS. [§ 140.
other writings not relevant to the issue may be shown him,
and he may be asked, to test the extent and accuracy of his
knowledge, if they are genuine or spurious.^ The party cross-
examining the expert by questioning him as to the genuineness
of irrelevant writings will be bound by his answer, as that is
a collateral and irrelevant fact." A person who on the stand
denies the genuineness of a writing alleged to be his may, on
cross-examination, be asked to write his name or other word
for use as a standard of comparison.' While a party should
not be permitted to fabricate evidence by being asked to write
his name on his direct examination when he disputes the au-
thenticity of a writing,* if he does so, another person who
has only the knowledge of his writing which he has gained by
seeing him write in court is not competent as a witness.'
Where a witness, on an issue of forgery, testifies that he wrote
certain words in a genuine instrument not produced, he may
be asked to write those words for comparison with the writ-
ing said to be forged.^
§ 140. Comparison of handwriting. — The distinction be-
tween evidence of the genuineness of handwriting founded
upon the knowledge of the witness and that furnished by a
comparison of papers or writings is important and well
marked. " Comparison of handwriting occurs when other wit-
nesses prove a paper to be in the handwriting of a party and the
witness desires to take the papers in his hand, compare them,
and determine whether they are or are not the same hand-
writing. There the witness collects all his knowledge from
comparison only; he knows nothing of himself ; he has not
seen the party write nor held any correspondence with him." '
1 Armstrong v. Thurston, 11 Md. derson v. Osgood, 53 Vt. 309. But
148; Fogg V. Dennis, 3 Humph, see, core^ra. Bank v. Robert, 41 Mich.
(Tenn.) 47; Howard v. Patrick, 43 709; Gilbert v. Simpson, 6 Daly, 31
Mich. 181 ; Bank v. Mudgett, 44 N. Y. < Williams v. State, 6 Ala. 33 ; King
514; Massey v. Bank, 104 111. 337; v. Donahue, 110 Mass. 155; United
Bacon v. Williams, 13 Gray (Mass.), States v. Jones, 10 Fed. Rep. 469.
537 ; Rose v. Bank, 91 Mo. 399 ; Pierce Cf. Stats v. Koontz, 5 S. E Rep. 328.
T. Northey, 14 Wis. 9; Griffiths v. ^Reese t. Reese, 90 Pa St. 89.
Avery, 11 A. & E. 333. SHufC v. Niins, 11 Neb. 363.
2 People V. Murphy, 135 N. Y. 450; 'Duncan, J., in Com. v. Smith, 6
33 N. E. Rep. 138. S. & R. (Pa.) 568, 571. See Mudd v.
3 Chandler v. Barron, 45 Me. 584; Suckermore, 5 A. & E. 703, 730;
Roe V. Roe, 40 N. Y. Sup. Ct 1 ; San- Bouv, Diet, p. 851 ; Burdiok v. Hunt,
§ 140.] PEIVATE WKITINGS. 201
T-lie proof of handwriting by comparison has been a much
litigated subject. In the eighteenth century this method of
proof was recognized in the English ecclesiastical courts, the
judges adopting the rule as it existed and was observed in the
Roman law.' The doctrine met with strenuous resistance
when its introduction was attempted in the courts of common
law. It was argued that it would be useless to submit writ-
ings for comparison to jurors who could neither read nor
write; that fraud might be practiced both in the writings in
dispute and in the standards with which they would be com-
pared; that handwriting is variable, adapting itself to the
age, habits, education and mental state of the writer, to the
condition of his writing materials and to the haste with which
they are used. So the genuineness of the specimens offered
for comparison might be impeached, causing the introduction
of others with a consequential indefinite increase of collateral
issues. But jurors are no longer illiterate, and, so far as fraud
is concerned, either party may offer specimens for comparison.
Nor will the adverse party be subject to unfair surprise, for
he ought certainly to know what writings he has signed and
to be able to recognize and explain any and all alterations
in them.^
This matter is now settled in England by statute,' and a
similar statute has been enacted in many of the states of the
Union. By these statutes, in the states of New York, New
Jerse}', Wisconsin, Iowa, Georgia, Louisiana and California,
it is substantially provided that where the genuineness of any
writing is in dispute it may be compared with any writing
whatever proved or acknowledged to be genuine. The com-
parison is to be made by witnesses, who shall give their opin-
43 Ind. 381, 386 ; Travis v. Brown, 43 Rex v. Crosby, 13 Mod., No. 72 ;
Pa. St 9, 13. Seven Bishops' Case, 13 How. St. Tr.
1 Wliarton on Evid., vol. 1, § 711. 183, 306 ; More v. Wood, 14 East, 337 ;
and autliorities cited ; Spear v. Bone, Brune v. Rawlings, 7 id. 279, 282;
cited Mudd v. Suokermore, 5 A. & E. Kevett v. Braham, 4 T. E. 497 ; Til-
703; Beaumont v. Perkins, 1 Phil- man v. Traver, Moody & Ryan, 141;
lim. 78. , AUport v. Meek, 4 C. & P. 267 ; Grif-
2 See the remarks of Patteson, J., fith v. Williams, 1 M. & R. 133, for
in Mudd v. Suokermore, 5 ' A. & E. the earlier cases.
703, 709. See, also, Hayes' Case, 10 ^ 17 and 18 Vict, ch. 135, § 37.
How. St Tr. 313 ; Buller's Nisi, p. 336 ;
202
PEIVATE WEITINGS.
[§ 140.
ion, which, together with the document, shall then be sub-
mitted to the jury.i
In other states the common-law rule is adhered to, and
while comparison, both by expert witnesses and by the jury,
is permitted, it must be made with writings which are rele-
vant to the case, or, if with other writings, their authenticity
must have been admitted either expressly or by conduct suf-
ficient to estop the party.^
In the courts of other states, and in the United States su-
preme court, no irrelevant writing can be selected as a
standard of comparison. Comparison can only be made with
some writing properly constituting a part of the evidence or
record and the genuineness of which is acknowledged.'
1 Mortimer v. Chambers, 17 N. Y. S.
553; Durnell v. Sowden (Utah), 14
Pac. Eep. 335; State v. Henderson,
29 W. Va. 147 ; Smith v. Caswell, 67
Tex. 567 ; Clay v. Alderson, 10 id. 49 ;
Boggus V. State, 34 Ga. 375 ; Ham-
mond V. Wolf (Iowa, 1893), 42 N. W.
Rep. 778 ; Baker v. Mygatt, 14 Iowa,
131; Le Carpeutier v. Delery, 4
Mart. (La.) 454; State v. Zimmer-
man, 47 Kan. 242; Yeomans v. Petty,
40 N. J. Eq. 495 ; Peck v. Callahan,
95 N. Y. 73; McKay v. Lasher, 42
Huo, 270; Winnie v. Tousley, 36
Hun, 190 ; State v. Miller, 47 Wis. 530 ;
Smith V. Elniert, 47 Wis. 479 ; Hall
V. Van Vranken, 64 How. Pr. 407;
Marshall v. Hancock, 80 Cal. 82;
Holmes v. Goldsmith, 145 U. S. 150.
2 Hazzard v. Viokory, 78 Ind. 64 ;
Short V. Kinzie, 80 Ind. 500 ; Thomas
V. State, 103 Ind. 419; Rogers v.
Tyley (111., 1898), 33 N. E. Rep. 393;
Morrison v. Porter, 35 Minn. 425;
Springer v. Hall, 83 Mo. 93; Bank v.
Robert, 41 Mich. 709; Dietz v.
Fourth Nat. Bank (Mich.), 37 N. W.
Rep. 220 ; People v. Parker, 34 N. W.
Rep. 720; State v. Henderson, 29 W.
Va. 147 ; Yates v. Yates. 76 N. C. 142 ;
Lachance v. Lohlein, 15 Mo. App.
460 ; Rose v. Bank, 91 Mo. 399 ; Wag-
oner V. Ruply, 69 Tex. 700 ; Walker
V. State, 14 Tex. App. 609 ; Chester
V. State, 23 Tex. App. 577 ; State v.
De GrofE (N. C, 1893), 18 S. E. Eep.
507: Andrews v. Hayden (Ky.), 11
S. W. Rep. 428. If the writing in
dispute has been lost, an expert who
has se.en it may compare it with a
relevant writing. Abbott v. Cole-
man, 22 Kan. 250. Cf. Collins v.
Ball, 82 Tex. 259.
3 Snyder v. Berkes (Ale), 4 S. W.
Rep. 225 ; Bestor v. Roberts, 58 Ala.
331 ; Clark v. Rhoades, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.)
206; Wilbur v. Eicholtz, 5 Col. 340;
Bank v. Lierman, 5 Neb. 247 ; Miller
V. Jones, 32 Ark. 337 ; Brobston v.
Cahill, 64 111. 356 ; Woodard v. Spil-
ler, 1 Dana (Ky.), 180; McCafferty
V. Heritage, 5 Houst, (Del.) 220 ; Mil-
ler V. Johnston, 27 Md. 6 ; Moore v.
United States, 91 U. S. 370 ; Merritt
V. Straw, 33 N. E. Rep. 657 ; Bank v.
Houghton, 41 Mich. 709; Himrod v.
Bolton. 44 111. App. 516. It has been
recently held that handwriting can-
not be proved by comparison, in
Gibson v. Trowbridge (Ala., 1893), 11
S. Rep. 365; Riggs v. Powell (Ga.,
1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 483; Bevan v.
Bank, 31 N. E. Rep. 679 ; 39 111. App.
577.
§ 140.] PEIVATE WHITINGS. 203
A writing intended to be used as a standard must be proved
or admitted to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
The matter is one lying largely in his discretion, and his ac-
tion should not be reversed unless he has committed some
manifest error of law or unless his finding is totally unsup-
ported by the evidence adduced.' Where the standard of
comparison is an irrelevant writing and its genuineness is dis-
puted, it must be proved directly by the evidence of witnesses
who can testify of their own knowledge that it is genuine. -
In those courts which permit a comparison v?ith irrelevant
writings, expert testimony is always admissible. So attor-
neys at law,' business men with extensive correspondence,*
bank officials,' conveyancers," book-keepers,' public officials,*
writing teachers,' and other persons who from their position
or profession have a peculiar knowledge of the subject, may
testify.'
In many cases, particularly in those states where compari-
son is not permitted with irrelevant writings, it has been held
that the testimony of experts upon handwriting is not ad-
1 state T. De Graff (N. C, 1894), 18 bois v. Baker, 30 N. Y. 355; Walker
S. E. Rep. 507 ; Hyde v. Woolfolk, 1 t. 8tate, 14 Tex. App. 009.
Iowa, 159; Wilson v. Irish, 63 id. « Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 387.
360; Tyler v. Todd, 36 Conn. 318; 'State v. De Gratf (N. C, 1894), 18
Thompson v. State (Me.), 18 Atl. Rep. S. E. Rep. 507 ; State v. Ward, 39 Vt
893; Com. v. Coe, 115 Mass. 481; 335 ; Vinton v. Peck, s!/pra.
People V. Cline, 44 Mich. 390 ; Con- s Eisfield v. Dill et al., 71 Iowa,
rad V. Bank, 10 Mart. 700; Hall v. 443; State v. De Graff (N. G, 1894),
Van Vranken, 64 How. Pr. 407 ; IS S. E. Rep. 507 ; State v. Phair, 48
Depue V. Place, 7 Pa. St. 428; Rowell Vt. 366.
V. Fuller, 59 Vt 688. G/. Carter v. » Eisfield v. Dill, 7 Iowa, 443;
Jackson, 58 N. H 156 ; State v. Hast- Moody v. Rowell. 17 Pick. 450 ; Bacon
ings, 53 N. H. 453. v. Williams, 13 Gray, 525.
2 Pavey v. Pavey, 30 Ohio St. 600 ; ' Edmonston t. Henry, 45 Mo. App.
Baker v. Haines, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 284 346; Com. v. Williams, 105 Mass. 62
Of. Bell v.'Brewster, 44 Ohio, 690, and Sweetzer v. Lowell, S3 Me. 446, 450
Sweigart v. Richard, 8 Barr (Pa.), Roldstein v. Black, 50 Cal. 468, 465
436, where comparison is to be made Hyde v. Woolfolk, 1 Iowa, 159
with writings over thuty years old. Murphy v. Hagermaa, Wright (Ohio),
3 State T. Phair, 4S Vt. 366. 393, 397 ; Winch v. Norman, 65 Iowa,
4 Ort V. Fowler, 31 Kan. 478 ; Ken- 186 ; Ort v. Fowler, 31 Kan. 478 ;
nedy v. Upshaw, 66 Tex. 443, 446. Mallory v. Ohio Farmers' Ins. Ca, 90
6 Lyon V. Lyman, 9 Conn. 55; Du- Mich; 112; 51 N. W. Ecp. 18a
2Q4:
PEIVATE WEITINGS.
[§ 1«-
missible and comparison is generally to be made by the court
or jury.'
§ 141. To what expert may give eyidence. — An expert
may testify to the characteristics of the handwriting; as, for
example, that it is cramped or crowded,^ or natural and free
as distinguished from stiff, artificial and seemingly copied,' as
to the condition of the paper,^ whether two writings are by
the same person,' or as to the slant * or other peculiarity of the
letters,' as to the size, length and position of signatures;' and
he may give his opinion upon the question whether writings
were or were not written at the same time by the same per-
son and with the same writing materials.*
An expert may testify to the character of alterations and
erasures and may give his opinion as to their date and the
means by which they were effected.'"
1 Hawkins v. Grimes, 13 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 257, 264; Kernin v. Hill, 37
111. 209 ; Fee v. Taylor, 83 Ky. 259 ;
Tome V. Railroad Co., 39 Md. 37;
Gitohell V. Ryan, 84 111. App. 372;
In re Rockey's Estate, 155 Pa. St.
453 ; 26 Atl. Rep. 656 ; 33 W. N. C.
434; Tucker v. Kellogg (Utah, 1893),
28 Pae. Rep. 870 ; State v. Zimmer-
man, 47 Kan. 242.
2 Dubois V. Baker, 30 N. Y. 355.
3 Moody V. Rowell, 17 Pick. (Mass.)
490; Ludlow v. Warshing, 108 N. Y.
530; Cox T. Dill, 85 lud. 334; Good-
year V. Vosburgh, 63 Barb. 154;
Wither v. Roe, 45 Me. 571.
* Hancock v. O'Rourke, 6 N. Y. S.
549.
5 Rogers v. Tyler (111., 1893), 33
N. E. Rep. 393. See upon the subject
of expert evidence, post, g§ 185-198.
6 Goodyear v. Vosburgh, 63 Barb.
(N. Y.) 154.
'Taylor V. Crowninshield, 5 N. Y.
Leg. Obs. 209, 233.
SRiordan v. Guggerty, 39 N. W.
Rep. 107.
9 Bank v. Holls, 11 Gray (Mass.),
250; Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 287;
Bank v. Young, 36 Iowa, 44 ; Sheldon
V. Warner, 45 Mich. 638; Reese v.
Reese, 90 Pa. St. 89; Ell ing wood v.
Bragg, 52 N. H. 488; Clark v. Bruce,
13 Hun, 371 ; Dubois v. Baker, 30
N. Y. 355 ; Fultou v. Hood, 84 Pa. St
365. An expert may be permitted to
use a black-board (Dryer v. Brown,
53 Hun, 391), and as the correctness
of his opinion may usually be thus
ocularly demonstrated, his evidence
is of little weight, it seems, if he
neglects to do so. In re Gordon
(N. J., 1893), 36 Atl. Rep. 268. See
§197.
lOKruse v. Chester, 66 Cal. 353;
Dubois V. Baker, 30 N. Y. 355; Han-
kins V. Grimes, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.)
257-264 ; Ballentine v. White. 77 Pa.
St. 20-33; Eisfield v. Dill, 71 Iowa,
442 ; Pate v. People, 8 111. 644 ; Moye
V. Hoydun, 30 Miss. 110; Viuton v.
Peck, 14 Mich. 287: Edelln v. Sand-
ers, 8 Md. 118. See as to alteration,
g§ 138, 139. If the date stated in the
writing is obscure an expert may
give an opinion as to the real date
(Stone V. Hubbard, 7' Cush. 595), or
he may testify to the age of the in-
§ 142.] p'eivate wettings. 205
, In a prosecution for homicide, where the identity of the
prisoner is in issue, the signature of the accused may be com-
pared with writings proved to have been written by the slayer,
or various writings alleged to have been written by him may be
compared with each other by an expert or in some cases by
the jury.'
§ 142. Proof of exhibits in eijuity. — An exhibit, using the
word in its general sense, means a document produced and
identified for use as evidence.' In its restricted sense it sig-
nifies writings which are proved in chancery either by the ex-
press admissions of the parties in the pleadings, or by failing
to deny their existence when alleged, or by viva voce examina-
tion of witnesses at the hearing.^ So also when writings are
put in evidence before a referee, before a jurj'- in open court,
or before a commissioner or examiner appointed to take testi-
mony in chancery, they should be exhibited to the witness and
examiner or referee to be identified by the witness, after which
they should be marke(;l as exhibits by the proper official.' In
modern chancery practice certain classes of documents, among
which are included ancient records and deeds, public records,
and deeds, bonds, notes, bills of exchange, letters and receipts,
may be proved as exhibits at the hearing after answer before
the chancellor,* by any witness who can testify to their execu-
tion, identity or their accuracy as copies of an original.
Usually a party who wishes to prove an exhibit on a hear-
ing must obtain an order to that effect,* though his adversary
has no right to an inspection of the writing prior to the hear-
sU-ument Eisfleld v. Dill, 71 Iowa, Bank of State of N. Y., 4 HiU (N. Y.),
442; Clark v. Bruce, 13 Hun, 171. 516.
Contra, Cheney v. Dunlap, 20 Neb. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.)
265. 881, 883 ; Chalk v. Raine, 7 Hare, 393 :
1 Crist V. State, 31 Ala. 137; Early Gvesley, Eq. Evid., 188.
V. State, 9 Tex. App. 476; Bell v. s Borrow v. Rhinelander, 1 Johns.
Brewster, 44 Ohio St 690; ION. E. Ch. (N. Y.) 559; Miller v. Avery, 3
Rep. 679. Barb. Ch. 582.
1 Abb. Law Diet « Lord v. Colvin, 2 Do G., M. & G.
2Gresley, Eq. Evid., 146. 47.
"Abb. Law Diet; Com. Bank v.
CHAPTEE XIII.
JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC RECORDa
1505. The effect of judicial records
as evidence.
Effect of judgments on those
in privity with the par-
ties.
Judgment must have been
final and on the merits.
Judgments conclusive only
as to material facts in issue.
Identity of cause of action
required.
Persona affected by judg-
ments in rem and actions
fixing personal status.
Criminal judgments.
Proof of judgments as facts
and their use as proving
ulterior facts distinguished.
Validity and effect of for-
eign judgments.
Judgments of sister states.
Judgments in bar need not
be pleaded.
§ 143a. Inspection of public records. — From early times,
both at common law and by statute, the right of the individ-
ual to inspect public records in so far as he had personal
interest in them has been admitted.^ In respect to judicial
records of courts of a superior jurisdiction, an inspection
may in the discretion of the court be compelled by mandamus,
though the official having the custody of the papers is a party
to the suit in which they are to be used.^ But where a man-
damus is desired to inspect the books of an inferior tribunal
or official, it will generallj'^ be necessary for the applicant to
show affirmatively that he has some personal interest in the
1 Soribner v. Chase. 27 111. App. 36. Fox v. Jones, 7 B. & a 733. Cf.
2 Rex V. Brangen, 1 Leach Cr. Cas. Colnen v. Orr, 71 Cal. 43.
33; Stone v. Crocker, 24 Pick. 88;
142(7.
Inspection of public records.
§ 1506
1436.
Proof of executive and legis-
lative acts and writings.
151.
143c.
Proof of public non-judicial
records.
143.
Proof of foreign laws.
153.
143a
Proof of municipal ordi-
nances.
153.
144.
Effect of public documents
as evidence.
154
145.
Historical and scientific pub-
lications— Almanacs and
155.
newspapers.
146.
Proof of judicial records —
General rule.
ir)6.
147.
Proof of records of courts
of equity and of inferior
courts.
157.
148.
Proof of records of courts of
other states.
158.
149.
Proof of foreign judgments.
159.
150.
Recoi-ds of surrogate courts.
160.
150a. Proof of returns on writs.
§ 142a.] JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIO EEC0ED3. 207
document and that he intends to copy it for a proper pur-
pose.'
When, in order to give the right of appeal, officials must
make a record of their action, they may be compelled to do so
by mandamus^' and an official may be thus compelled to re-
cord a deed or file a paper,' or to correct his records,^ or to
affix a seal to a document.' A public official may exercise
reasonable discretion in making rules to be observed by those
desiring to inspect the records of his office.*
In respect to the records of a private corporation, the same
general principles are applicable. Such records, while public
so far as its officials and stockholders' are concerned, are pri-
vate as regards other persons. A stranger having no interest
in the corporation cannot obtain mandamus to compel an in-
spection of them.^ But a stockholder has a constitutional
right to inspect the books of the corporation, though a refusal
to permit him to do so is not ground for an action for dam-
ages ; ' and -a stockholder who is also a debtor to the corpo-
ration cannot obtain a mandamus to inspect its books as a
stockholder to aid him in his capacity of debtor."
1 Hayes v. White, 66 He. 305 ; State 1005 ; Atheiton v. Beard, 3 T. R. 610 ;
V. Hoblitzelle, 85 Me. 620 ; Stockman lasigi v. Brown, 1 Curt C. C. 401.
v.Brooks,27Pac.Rep. 746; Diamond sxjpton v. Catlin, 17 Colo. 546;
M. Co. V. Powers, 51 Mich. 145 ; O'Hara State v. Long, 37 W. Va. 266 ; Atche-
V. King, 53 III. 303 ; Cormack v. son v. Huebner, 90 Mich. 643.
Waloott, 17 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 'State v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.,
309 ; State v. Rachac, 37 Minn. 373. 29 Mo. App. 301 ; State v. Sportsman
2 People V. Murray, 33 N. ¥. S. 160 ; P. & C. Ass'n, 38 id. 336 ; People v.
Bennett v. McCaffery, 28 Mo. App. Uiiited States Merc. Rep., 30 Abb.
220 ; State v. Field, 37 id. 83 : Warren N. C. 193 ; People v. Paton, 20 id. 195.
Co. V. State, 15 Ind. 250. But c/. Appeal of Erap. Pass. R R.
3 Trinity v. Lane, 79 Tex. 643; Co., 19 Atl. Rep. 639 ; 36 W. N. C. 26.
United States v. Hall, 7 Mackey, 14; 8 state v. Bank, 1 Rob. (La.) 470;
Willflange v. McCollom, 83 Ky. 361 ; State v. May, 106 Mo. 488 ; Bank v.
People V. Collins, 7 .Johns. 549 ; In re Hilliard, 5 Cowen, 419 ; 6 id. 63 ; State
Goodell, 14 id. 325 ; Strong's Case, v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 29 Mo.
Kirby (Conn.), 345. App. 301 ; Union Bank v. Knapp, 3
* People V. Brooklyn, 7 N. Y. S. Pick. 96. Cf. United States v. Hull,
327 ; State v. Clayton, 34 Mo. App. 7 Mackey, 14.
563; Ellis v. Bristol, 2 Gray (Mass.), SLegendre v. New Orleans Brew.
370; Bower v. O'Brien, 2 Ind. 423; Co. (La., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 837.
People V. Matterson, 17 111. 167. i" Investment Co. v. Bldridge, 2 Pa.
5 Prescott V. Ganser, 34 Iowa, 175. Dis. Ct. R 394.
See, also, Crew v. Saunders, 2 Str,
208 JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EECOEDS. [§§ 1425, 142e.
§ 14:2b. Proof of executive and legislative acts by docu-
ments.— The extent to which the public acts, seals, statutes,
etc., of the various departments- of the supreme government
will be noticed having been fully explained elsewhere in this
work,^ no extended reference to the subject is necessary.
When, however, it is deemed necessary to prove any public
executive or other official act, it may be done prima facie by
the production of a printed copy of a proclamation, or public
notice or announcement, or by a newspaper, official gazette
or other printed document containing an account thereof
which was printed according to law under governniental con-
trol or authoriz;ation.^
The court will take judicial notice of the public statutory
and common law prevalent in its own jurisdiction,' though
private statutes or resolutions must be proved. The custom
of printing the legislative acts of congress and of the various
state legislatures is now almost universal, and as the printing
is done by_persons under statutory authorization and subject
to governmental control and supervision, no objection can be
urged to admitting these printed statutes in evidence.
It is now the general rule, usually by judicial decision but
frequentljr by express legislative enactment, that a book pur-
porting to be printed by authority and to contain the stat-
utory law may, if duly attested as prescribed by law, be read
as the best evidence of any statutory law, public or private,
domestic or foreign.*
§ 142c. Proof of public non-judicial records. — The entries
in public registers or books of public record are entitled to a
1 See j30,s<, §§ 340, 242. 3 See §243.
2Whiton V. Albany, etc. Co., 109 ^Watkins v. Hoi man, 16 Pet. 25;
Mass. 24; Fulhara v. Howe, 14 Atl. Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595; Tennant
Rep. 653; 60 Vt. 351 ; Larten v. Gil- v. Tennant, 110 Pa. St 484; Falls v.
ham, 3 III. 577; Young v. Bank, 4 United States Sav. S. & B. Co. (Ala.,
Cranch, 388; People v.' Wilson, 62 1893), 13 S. Rep. 25; Leach v. Linde,
Hun, 618; Eld v. Gorham, 30 Conn. 24 N. Y. S. 176; Chicago v. Tuite, 44
8; Larkin v. Burlington, etc. Co. 111. App. 535 ; Hawes t. State, 88 Ala.
(Iowa, 1893), 52 N. W. Rep. 480; 37 ; Cochran v. Ward (Ind., 1893), 29
Clemens v. Myer, 44 La. 390 ; 10 S. N. E. Rep. 795. Of. Laidley v. Cura-
Eep. 797: Lycelt v. Wolffi, 45 Mo. mings, 83 Ky. 806 ; Fulhara v. Howe,
App. 489 (printed copy of census). 60 Vt. 351,
§ 14:2c.] JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EECOEDS. 209
high degree of credibility as evidence though unauthenticated
ia court by the oath of the party who made them or iu whose
custody the books are kept. The general notoriety'- of the
matters to which such entries relate, the public and official
character of the books and of those who keep them, the fact
that the entries are made by an officer who is under oath,
that they are .required or authorized to be made by law, or
else are made in the usual course of official duty without any
present motive to misrepresent, combine to give the evidence
obtained from such sources peculiar force and value.
To give an official character to a public record or register
it is not essential that it should have been authorized or or-
dered to be kept by statute.' It is the duty, if not the right,
of every official to keep a record of his public transactions
whenever such a practice is an appropriate and common
mode of evidencing them. This record, whether required to
be kept by statute or not, is a public record.' The books
themselves, being produced from the proper custody, should
be received in evidence without authentication,' unless it is
affirmatively shown that they have been _ negligently or ille-
gally kept.*
It is obvious, however, that the actual production of public
records in court will be very inconvenient, if not impossible,
on account of their bulky character and of the constant use
to which they are subjected. So their proper and legal cus-
todian is the party who has made the entries.' Upon these
grounds, at common law and now generally by statute, the
contents of books of public record, such as the records of the
1 United States v. Cross, 20 D. C. 3 Pulley v. Hilton, 13 Price, 635 ;
865; Grafton V. Reed, 34 W. Va. 172 ; Oglesby v. Forman, 77 Tex. 647;
Downing v. Diaz, 80 Tex. 436 ; 16 S. Baillie v. Jackson, 17 Eng. L. & Eq.
-W. Eep. 49; Simmons v. Spratt, 20 131.
Fla. 495. But c/. confra, 'Hatchett 4 Walker v. Wingaeld, 18 Ves. 443
V. Conner, 30 Tex. 104 ; Jacobi v. Loving v. Warren Co., 14 Bush (Ky.),
Order of Germania, 36 N. Y. S. 318. 316 ; Sanger v. Merritt, 120 N. Y. 114
2 Succession of Short (La., 1894), 14 Chamberlain v. Baily, 101 Mass. 188
S. Rep. 184; Coleman v. Com., 35 Butler v. L. Ins. Co., 45 Iowa, 98
Gratt (Va.) 865 ; Kyburg v. Perkins, Springs v. Schenck, 106 N. C. 158.
6 Cal. 674 ; Miller v. Indianapolis, 128 5 " The carrying of original papers
Ind. 196 ; 34 N. E, Rep. 238 ; Burton from one court to another is to be
V. Tuite, 80 Mich. 318 ; 44 N. W. Rep. disapproved." Rogers v. Tillman, 73
283. Ga. 479.
14
210
JUDICIAL AND OTHKK PUBLIC RECORDS. [§ 142c.
navy ' or treasury department,'* county records and parish
registers,' public assessment rolls,* postofflce, custom-house'^
and land-office records," registers of vital statistics,' registers
of deeds,^ of mechanics' liens ' and of leases of public lands,'*
may be proved by an examined copy properly sworn to by
the party making it, or by a transcript properly verified and
certified by the official whose duty it is to keep the original."
If the form of the certificate is prescribed by statute, the
legal requirements must be substantially complied with, though
immaterial inaccuracies or informalities may be disregarded.'^
Thus, where the official character of the certificate is apparent
upon its face, it is not required that it shall state that it is a
1 Maurice v. ■Warden, 57 Md. 510.
2Mott Y. Ramsay, 92 N. C. 153;
United States v. Bell, 111 U. S. 477.
3 Hall V. Aitkin, 25 Neb. 360.
4 Clark V. Fairly, 30 Mo. App. 335.
5 State V. Loughlin, 20 Atl. Rep. 88.
6 Stevenson v. Reeves, 8 S. Rep.
695 ; Niche v. Earle, 117 Ind. 270.
' Shutesbury v. Hadley, 133 Mass.
243; Tucker v. People, 117 111. 91.
8 Chamberlain v. Brasley, 101 Mass.
88.
sConsaul v. Sheldon, 35 Neb. 247.
lOEmmett v. Lee (Ohio, 1894), 35 N.
E. Rep. 794.
II Stone Cattle & Past. Co. v. Boon,
73 Tex. 158 ; Buck v. Gage, 27 Neb.
306 ; 43 N. W. Rep. 110 ; New Eng-
land, etc. Co. V. Farmington, etc. Co.,
8 U. S. 229 ; Simmons v. Spratt, 20
Fla. 495 ; Consaul v. Sheldon, 35 Neb.
247; Bryan v. Wear, 4 Mo. 106;
Owings V. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420;
Ronkendorf v. Taylor, 4 Pet. 349,
360; Sawyer v. Baldwin, 11 Pick.
494 ; United States v. Johns, 4 Dall.
413, 415; Jackson v. Boneham, 15
Johns. 226 ; Ray v. Stewart, 105 N.
C. 473 ; Fruin-Bambrick Co. v. Geist,
37 Mo. App. 509 ; Wiley v. Inhabit-
ants, 150 Mass. 436 ; Thrasher v. Bal-
lard, 33 W. Va. 385 ; Thurston v. Luce,
61 Mich. 393; Bell v. Kendrick (Fla.,
1890), 6 S. Rep. 868; Liddon v. Hod-
nett, 22 Fla. 443 ; Lagow v. Glover,
77 Tex. 448; Emanuel v. Gates, 53
Fed. Rep. 773; Tillotson v. Weber
(Mich., 1893), 58, N. W. Rep. 837 j
Lamar v. Pearse (Ga., 1893), 17 S. E.
Rep. 93. Cf. State v. Cake, 24 N. J.
L. 516.
"Mackey v. Bait. etc. Co., 19 D. C.
283; Collins v. Ball, 83 Tex. 259;
Dawson v. Parham, 55 Ark. 286 ; Sax-
ton V. Nirams, 14 Mass'. 320 ; Sanger
v. Merritt, 130 N. Y. 114; Good-
win V. Jack, 68 Me. 416; Cofer v.
Sohening (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 133 ;
State V. Hendrix, 98 Mo. 374; Gunn
V. Peakes, 36 Minn. 177 ; Bean v. Lor-
yea, 81 Cal. 51. A deputy may cer-
tify in the name of the legal custodian
of the record (Hague v. Porter, 45 111.
318 ; Tripletc v. Gill,. 7 J. J. Marsh.
433; Grant v. Levan, 4 Pa. St. 393;
Greasons v. Davies, 9 Iowa, 219),
though not in his own.name. Snyder
V. Brown, 4 Watts (Pa.), 133. The
signature of the keeper of the record
certifying thereto need not be proved.
Floyd V. Ricks, 14 Ark. 386. But its
forgery may, on the other hand, be
shown. Prather v. Johnson, 3 Har.
& J. (Md.) 487 ; Bryan v. Wear, 4 Mo.
106.
§ 143.] JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EEOOEDS. 211
true copy of an official document or record.' Where by statute
it is required that certain private writings must be recorded,
they are then regarded as public records, and it is often en-
acted that such records or exemplified or certified copies
thereof may be introduced as original evidence without fur-
ther proof.^ A copy of a record of a conveyance made when
deeds were required to be stamped is not inadmissible as evi-
dence because it does not show that the original was stamped.'
But a deed is not admissible without proof under such a stat-
ute where the fact in issue is the forgery of the original.*
§ 143. Proof of foreign laws. — As the courts refuse to
take judicial notice of foreign laws' it is always necessary to
prove them as facts before they can be applied to the facts in
issue. This is now customarily done in the case of a statute
by reading it from a printed book or copy purporting to con-
tain the statute in question, and duly attested as a true copy
by the supreme authority of the foreign government, usually
uuder its seal, or otherwise proved to have been published by
or under proper authority or to have been received as proof
of the law in the courts of the foreign state.^ "Whether the
foreign statute has been satisfactorily proved is a question for
the jury alone; but where the proof of a foreign law consists
wholly of documentary evidence, the construction and legal
effect of this evidence are wholly within the exclusive province
of the court.' It has been held that a consul's certificate under
1 Darcy v. McCarthy, 35 Kan. 723 ; 426 ; Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 551 ;
Collins V. Valleau (Iowa, 1889), 43 Spaulding v. Vincent, 24 Vt. 501;
N. W. Rep. 284. Church v. Hubbard, 2 Cranch, 238 ;
2 See ante, §§ 134-136 ; How. Stat. Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 475 ;
Mich., § 5685; Iowa Code, § 3702; Packard v. Hill, 2 id. 411; Charlotte
Gen. Stat. Ind. 1881, § 462; Bradley v. Chouteau, 33 Mo. 194; Owen v.
V. Silsbee, 33 Mich. 328 ; Cox v. Jones, Boyle, 15 Me. 147.
52 Ga. 438. Of. contra, as to a car- ' Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. (U. S.)
tiflcate of adoption, McCoUister v. 400 (Code Civil of France) ; Gibson v.
Yard (Iowa, 1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 447. Manuf. Co., 144 Mass. 83 ; McCormick
' Collins V. Valleau (Iowa, 1889), 43 v. Garrett, 5 De G., M. & G. 278 ; Uf-
N. W. Rep. 284. ford v. Spaulding, 156 Mass. 65 ; Ken-
4 People V. Swetland, 77 Mich. 83; nard v. Kennard, 63 N. H. 808; In-
43 N. W. Rep. 779. surance Co. v. Wright, 60 Vt. 523 ;
^ See post, § 343. Alexander v. Penn. etc. Co., 40 Ohio
«Seeglt3a;Ennisv.Smith,14How. St. 638; Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37.
212
JUDICIAL AND OTHEB PUBLIC EECOEDS.
[§ 143.
seal that the book was authorized or recognized as an author-
ity is not enough as proof.^
Under the rule that the evidence of experts is admissible in
matters concerning which they have peculiar knowledge or
skill/ witnesses who are learned in the statutory ' and com-
mon law of a country will be permitted to testify to their
knowledge or opinion of what that law is.* Foreign unwrit-
ten laws, usages and customs may be ordinarily, and neces-
sarily must be from the circumstances of the case often proved
by such evidence.' And such persons may refresh their memory
by reading from text-books of authorit}'- and from reports of
the decisions of foreign courts, and may perhaps read these
authorities to the jury,^ provided the witness is willing to
swear that the books are admitted as authorities by the courts
of the country in question.'
The witness will be required to be an advocate or official
who has had actual practice in the courts of the country
1 Cliurch V. Hubbart, 3 Crancli, 187,
236.'
2 See joosi, §§185-198.
8 Church V. Hubbard, 2 Cranch,
237.
^Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 436;
Baron De Bode v. Reginam, 10 Jur
317; The Poweshiek, 2 Low. 142;
Barrows v. Dowris, 9 R. I. 446 ; Holla
V. Van Alstyue, 20 111. 202 ; Roberts'
Will, 8 Paige, 446 ; Pierce v. Indseth,
106 U. S. 555.
5 Dalrymples v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg.
115-144 ; Dickerson v. Matheson, 50
Fed. Rep. 78; Talbot v. Seaman, 1
Cranch, 12-38; Denison v. Hyde, 6
Conn. 508; Brackett v. Norton, 4
Conn. 517 ; Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass.
253; Carnegie v. Morrison, 3 Met.
404 ; Haven v. Foster, 9 Pick. 130 ;
Bagley v. Francis, 14 Mass. 453 ; Lin-
coln V. Battel], 6 Wend. 483 ; Francis
V. Ocean Ins. Co., 6 Cowen, 439 ; Dyer
V. Smiths 13 Conn. 384; Brush 'v.
Wilkius, 4 Johns. Ch. 530 ; State v.
May Look, 7 Oreg. 54: Hall v. Cos-
tello, 48 N. H. 176; Kennard v. "Ken-
nard, 63 id. 308 ; Amer. L. Ins. Co. v.
Rosenagle, 77 Pa. St. 507.
^ Sue post, % 145.
7 Barrows v. Downs, 9 R. 1 4461 ;
Crogin v. Lamkin, 7 Allen, 895;
Penobscot Co. v. Bartlett, 13 Gray,
344; Arne v. MoCamber, 134 Mass.
90; Raymont V. Colter, 3 Pick. 393,
296 ; Brush v. Scribner, 11 Conn. 407 ;
Lattimer v. Eglin, 4 Desauss. 36, 32.
Chancellor Kent, in speaking of the
sources of knowledge of the common
law, uses the following language:
" The best evidence of the common
law is to be found in the decisions of
the courts of justice contained in the
numerous volumes of reports which
crowd the lawyer's library, and in the
treatises and digests of learned men,
which have been multiplying from
the earliest periods of English history
down to the present time. The re-
ports of judicial decisions contain
the most certain evidence, and the
most authoritative and precise appli-
cation of the rules of the common
law." 1 Com. 440.
U3a.]
JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EECOEDS.
213
whose law he is called upon to prove.' Thus, a Roman Cath-
olic bishop may testify to the law of his church,^ a student in
a university to the law of Germany,' and a French consul to
the law of France.''
The states of the Union are so far foreign to each other
that the rule stated as defining the mode of proving foreign
laws, both statute and unwritten, is generally applicable to
them. In many of them by statute, the statute law of an-
other state may now be proved by reading the same from a
printed volume which upon its face purports to contain the
law of that state."*
§ 14:3a. Municipal ordinances. — In the absence of statutory
provision regulating the proof of ordinances, the proper evi-
dence of their existence and contents is the original record
containing the ordinance itself,^ or a copy properly certified
or otherwise authenticated by the official having charge of
them.' Usually, however, it is enacted by the charter or a
1 See post, % 185, as to experts ; In
re Bonelli, L. R. 1 Prob. Div. 69;
Cartwright v. Cartwright, 26 W. R
684 ; Kennard v. Kennard, 63 N. H.
308. Cf. Donkt v. Thelluson, 8 C. B.
818.
^ Sussex Peerage Case, 11 C. & F.
134.
3 Bristow V. Sequeville, L. E. 5 Exch.
275.
<Lacon v. Higgins, 3 Stark. 178.
See Story on Conf. of Laws, g§ 641,
642, and the earlier cases there cited.
5 Mullen V. Morris, 3 Pa. St. 85;
Hempstead v. Read, 6 Conn. 480 ;
Hawes V. State, 7 S. Rep. 302; 88
Ala. 37 ; Falls v. United States Sav.,
Loan & Bldg. Soc. (Ala., 1893), 13 S.
Rep. 25; Tennant v. Tennant, 110
Pa. St. 478 ; 1 Atl. Rep. 532 ; Leach v.
Linde, 34 N. Y. S. 176 ; Kean v. Rice,
13 S. & R. 203; Greasens v. Davis, 9
Iowa, 319; Raynham v. Canton, 3-
Pick. 293. Under a statute rendering
admissible printed decisions of the
courts of a foreign state, dissenting
opinions are not admissible. Chicago,
etc. Co. V. Tuite, 44 111. App. 535.
6 Railroad Co. v. Johnson (Ga.,
1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 49.
' See post, § 243 ; City v. Dunn, 1
McCord (S. C), 333; Metrop. St. R.
Co. V. Johnson (Ga., 1893), 16 S. E.
Rep. 49 ; Louisville, etc. Co. v. Shires,
108 111. 617; Baily ». State (Neb.,
1890), 47 N. W. Rep. 208 ; Pugh v.
Little Rock, 35 Ark. 75; Black v.
Jacksonville, 86 111. 301; Fitch v.
Pinckard, 5 III. 78 ; Chicago v. Engle,
76 id. 31 7. The written records of
the corporation purporting to con-
tain the ordinances, coming from the
custody of the town clerk and prop-
erly identified as a municipal record,
have been received to prove ordi-
nances; People V. Wilson, 62 Hun,
612; Barnes v. City, 89 Ala. 602;
Tipton V. Norman, 72 Mo. 380 ; Ot-
tumwa V. Schaub, 53 Iowa, 515;
Stewart v. Clinton, 79 Mo. 604 ; Eich-
enlaub v. St. Joseph (Mo., 1893), 21
S. W. Rep. 8.
214 JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EEOOEDS. [§ 143».
general statute that an ordinance may be proved by reading
it from a printed volume published under municipal authority
and purporting to contain the municipal by-laws. Where
this is the case, the method of proving ordinances assimilates
closely to that employed in proving foreign or private stat-
utes and the same principles of law are applicable.^
Proof of the power to enact the ordinance may be re-
quired ; ^ and if by statute certain formalities, such as an adop-
tion by a majority vote, recording in books kept for the pur-
pose, signature by the mayor or publication are prescribed as
necessary to its validity, strict compliance therewith must be
shown.^ Where objection is not made prior to the reception
of the ordinance in evidence, it will be presumed that it was
properly enacted.* A compliance with such statutory require-
ments must ordinarily be proved by the journal of the mu-
nicipal council,* though it has been held that, where the record
was silent, the fact that an ordinance had been signed could be
proved by the parol evidence of the oiBcial whose duty it '
was to sign ordinances.'
A sworn certificate of the publisher of a newspaper in
which an ordinance was published is satisfactory evidence of
publication/ though it has been held, in the absence of statute,
1 Barr v. Auburn, 89 111. 361 ; State 48 Fed. Eep. 278 ; 54 Fed. Rep. 100 ;
V. King, 37 Iowa, 463 ; Napman v. Heller v. City of Alvarado, 20 S. W.
People, 19 Mich. 353 ; Independence Rep. 1003 ; 1 Tex. Civ. App. 409 ;
V. Trouvalle, 15 Kan. 70 ; Lindsay v. Seattle v. Doran, 5 Wash. St. 483 ;
Chicago, 115 111. 120; Prell v. Mc- Whitney v. Port Huron, 50 N. W.
Donald, 7 Kan. 446; Holly v. Ben- Rep. 316; 88 Mich. 268; Hutchison
nett, 46 Minn. 386. See, also, ante, v. Mount Vernon, 40 III. App. 19.
g 143. Where a written or printed * Flora v. Lee, 5 111. App. 629.
copy of an ordinance is known to ' Lexington v, Hfeadley, 5 Bush
exist, the ordinance cannot be proved (Ky.), 508 ; Bank v. Grenada, 54 Fed.
! by parol evidence, but the writing Rep. 100 ; Ball v. Fagg, 67 Mo. 481 ;
itself must be produced as the best Covington v. Ludlow, 1 Mete. (Ky.)
evidence. Stewart v. Clinton, 79 Mo. 295 ; People v. Murray, 57 Mich. 396 ;
604; Baker v. Scofield, 58 Ga. 182. Solomon v. Hughes, 34 Kan. 211.
■i Elizabethtown v. Lefler, 23 111. 90. « Knight v. Kans. etc. Co., 70 Mo.
3Sohott v. People, 89 111. 195; Lar- 331.
kin V. Railroad Co. (Iowa, 1893), 52 ' See post, § 145 ; Albia v. O'Hara,
N. W. Rep. 480 ; Willard v. Killing- 64 Iowa, 397 ; Kettering v. Jackson-
worth, 8 Conn. 247 ; Raker v. Ma- ville, 50 III. 39 ; Schwartz v. Oshkosh,
quon, 9 111. App. 155 ; National Bank 55 Wis. 490.
of Commerce v. Town of Grenada,
§ 144] JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EEC0ED3. 215
that publication may be shown by the evidence of a person
who saw a copy of the ordinance posted in some conspicuous
public place.^ But such a method of publication will not be
valid if publication in a newspaper is required by statute, or
if a newspaper is published in the town and publication could
have readily been made therein.^
In conformity with the rule of construction that a statute
or written law has no legal existence except in the language
in which it was enacted, an ordinance which is required to be
published in a German paper must be printed in English
where there is no express statutorj^ provision to the contrary.'
§ 144. Effect of public documents as evidence. — The prin-
ciples upon which a certified copy of a public writing is ad-
missible as primary evidence of the record are identical with
those which have been explained * as regulating the admission
of the entries of third parties Avhen constituting a part of the'
res gestae. The credibility of private and public entries is based
upon the same considerations, namely, that they were made
by a party whose duty it was to make them, who had compe-
tent knowledge of the subject-matter, that they are relevant,
and are within the scope of official, professional or private
employment. The production of the books themselves is nec-
essary a.s the best evidence of private entries. They do not
purport prima facie to be authentic,' but their original char-
acter and correctness must be proved by an oath of the person
who made them, or, if he cannot be produced, by the evidence
of some other competent witness."
As respects copies of public writings certified to by public
officials, it may be said that they are evidence of all the facts
they contain.' But a record is not evidence of any fact
iNewhan v. Aurora, 14 111. 364; v.Keen,18Wall.(U. S.)343; Whitcher
Teft V. Size, 10 id. 433; Eldora v. v. McLaughlin, 115 Mass. 167; Erwin
BurMngame, 63 Iowa, 33. v. English, 61 Conn. 503 ; Hancock
2Eaker v. Maquon, 9 III App. 155. v.^FIynn, 8 N. Y. S. 133; White v.
3 State V. City of Orange, 33 Atl. Whitney, 83 Cal. 163.
Eep. 804; 54 N. J. L. 111. • 'Falls Ld. Co. v. Chisolm (Tex.,
* §g 58-61. 1888), 9 S. W. Rep. 479 ; Bingham v.
5 Bradley v. Silsbee, 33 Mich. 338. Cabot, 8 Dall. 19, 33, 39-41 ; EadclifiE
6 Chenango Bank V. Lewis, 63 Barb. v. Insurance Co., 7 Johns. 38,51;
111 ; State v. Phair, 48 Vt. 366 ; Cul- Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 111. 399 ; Root
ver V. Marks, 133 Ind. 554 ; Mulhall v. King, 7 Cowen, 617 ; Darcy v. Mo-
216
JUDIOIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EECOEDS.
[§144.
not required to be recorded by the officer who has made the
entry.' Thus, a marriage register, while admissible to prove
the fact and date of the marriage, cannot be used to show the
age of either contracting party .^ Nor is a certificate of bap-
tism admissible to prove a person's age or place of birth,
though his age may be mentioned in it.' The date and fact
of the commitment or discharge of a prisoner may be shown
by the prison records,^ and records of municipal corporations
and official boards are generally admissible to prove official
and municipal acts required to be recorded.' The registry of
a ship, being a local and municipal requirement, is not recog-
nized by international law as evidence of the facts which
it contains. It is only admissible as evidence of ownership
when corroborated by circumstances which will render it
equivalent to an admission,' for a legal and nominal owner-
ship is consistent with one equitable and real in some other
person. Por this reason a register is never evidence in favor
of a person claiming ownership.' Log-books when required
Carthy, 35 Kan. 723 (copy of letter
of receiver of land office). The writ-
ing, whether public or private, should
be confined to those facts which are
desired to be proved by the party,
and his adversary cannot be allowed
to treat the documents as evidence
for all purposes and use them on
cross-examination for other objects.
Close V. Stuy vesant (IlL, 1890), 24 N.
K Eep. 868 ; Erie & Pac. Des. v. Stan-
ley, 123 111. 158 ; 14 N. E. Eep. 212 ;
Murray v. Suen, 41 La. Ann. 1109 ; 7
S. Eep. 126.
iMcGuii-k v. Mut. Ben. Life Ins.
Co., 20 N. y. S. 908; 66 Hun, 638;
Berry v. Hull (N. M., 1893), 30 Pac.
Eep. 36 ; Durfee v. Abbott, 61 Mich.
471 ; Lavin v. Mutual Aid Society,
74 Wis. 349 ; Hunt v. Chosen Friends,
64 Midi. 671 ; Carrington v. Potter,
37 Fed. Eep. 767; Hall v. Aitken, 25
Neb. 360 ; Brundred v. Del Hoyo, 20
N. J. L. 328; Fitter v. Shotwell, 7
Watts & S. 14 ; Evanston v. Gunn, 99
U. S. 660 (signal service record) ; The
Maria, 32 L. J. Adm. 163.
2 Doe V. Barnes, 1 M. & E. 386, 389.
3 Clark V, Trinity Church, 5 Watts
& Serg. 266 ; Blackburn v. Ctawford,
3 Wall. 189 ; Morrisey v. Ferry Co.,
47 Mo. 521 ; Derby v. Salem, 30 Vt.
732.
*Rex V. Aickles, 1 Lead. Cr. Gas.
435; Salte v. Thomas, 3 B. & P. 188.
See post, §§341-345.
'See ante, § 143a; Worcester v.
Northborough, 140 Mass. 400; Eon-
kendorf v. Taylor, 4 Pet. 349 ; Halleck
V. Boylston, 117 Mass. 469. Contra,
Buffalo L. T. & S. D. Co. v. Associa-
tion (N. T., 1891), 27 N. E. Eep. 942.
6 Merchants' N. Co. v. Amsden, 25
111. App. 607.
7 Bixby V. Franklin Ins. Co., 8 Pick.
86 ; Eexf ord v. Snow, 46 Hun, 570 ;
Tinkler v. Walpole, 14 East, 236;
Weston V. Penniraan, 1 Mason, 306,
818; Colseu v. Benzey, 6 Greenl.
(Me.) 474 ; Mclver v. Humble, 16 East,
169, cited in 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 494.
§ 145.]
JUDICIAL AND OTHBE PUBLIC EECOEDS.
217
by statute are admissible as public records to show prima
facie the facts required to be recorded in them. Otherwise
entries in log-books are mere private entries, depending for
admissibility upon their character as admissions or as a part
of the res gestm}
§ 14:5. Historical and scientific books and publications —
Almanacs and newspapers. — "Wbile the decisions are some-
what at variance, it may be said that books, maps or plans,
or publications relating to historical or scientific subjects of
widespread and general interest and notoriety which have,
from long public and general use, become recognized au-
thorities, will be received to prove facts treated therein.^
Maps made by surveyors or published by governmental au-
thority have sometimes been admitted as relevant evidence in
case of disputed boundaries, or where distances between places
are in question. If the map was published by legislative au-
thority, it should be certified as authentic by the secretary of
state or other proper official.' Private maps and plats should
be verified by the testimon}'- of the surveyor who made them
'The Hercules, 1 Sprague, 534
Orne v. Townsend, 4 Mason, 544
United States v. Gibert, 2 Sumn. 19
Abbott on Shipping, p. 468.
2 Roderiquez v. State (Tex., 1893),
33 S. W. Rep. 978 ; Com. v. King, 150
Mass. 233 ; Polhill v. Brown, 84 Ga.
843 (Map); Washburn v. Cuddihy, 8
Gray, 430 ; Morris v. Hanner, 7 Pet.
504. Cf. Vaux Peerage, 5 C. & F, 538 ;
Schell V. Plumb 55 N Y. 593; Com.
V. Wilson, 1 Gray, 337 ; Quackenbush
V. Railroad Co., 35 N. W. Rep. 533 ;
73 Iowa, 458 ; Ashworth v. Kittredge,
13 Cush. 93 ; Smith v. Navasota, 73
Tex. 432 ; Worcester v. Northborough,
140 Mass. 397; Ming v. Foote, 33
Pac. Rep. 515. See article in 26 Am.
Law Rev. 390. " Historical facts of
general and public notoriety may be
proved by reputation ; and that may
be established by historical works of
known character and accuracy. But
evidence of this sort is confined in a
great measure to ancient facts which
do not presuppose better evidence,
and where from the nature of the
transaction, or the remoteness of the
period, or the public and general re-
ception of the facts, a just founda-
tion is laid for general confidence.
The work of a living author who is
within reach of process is not of this
nature. He may be called as a wit-
ness and examined as to the sources
and accuracy of his information."
Story, J., in Morris v. Lessee of
Harmer's Heirs, 7 Pet 558 ; 1 Greenl.
Evid., § 497; 1 Whart. Evid., §g 338,
664.
s Nosier v. Railroad Co., 73 Iowa,
368 ; Armendiaz v. Stillman, 67 Tex.
458 ; 3 S. W. Rep. 678 ; Com. v. King,
150 Mass. 331; 23 N. E. Rep. 205;
Polhill V. Brown, 84 Ga. 338 ; 10 S. E
Rep. 931 ; Donohue v. Whitney, 133
N. Y. 178; Ming v. Foote (Mont,
1890), 33 Pac. Rep. 513.
218
JUDICIAL AND OTHEK PUBLIC EECOEDS.
[§ 146.
or by some other competent witness who will swear to their
correctness.!
In an action to recover for personal injuries or a wrongful
death, life and mortality tables in general use are, if identified,
admissible to show the expectation of life.^ A newspaper
may be received in evidence to prove facts which a statute
provides shall be published in it, such, for example, as laws
passed by the legislature, notices in legal proceedings, the
formation and dissolution of a partnership, and the like.' An
almanac is admissible to show facts recorded therein, not
strictly as evidence of such facts, but rather to refresh the
memory of the court and jury, where they are such (e. g., the
rising and setting of the sun and moon) as courts are bound
to notice judicially.*
§ 146. Proof of judicial records. — A judicial record is an
accurate history of a suit from its origin to its termination,
including the conclusion of law thereon, drawn up by the
iRoe V. strong, 107 N. Y. 356;
Com. V. Lurtzer, 19 Atl. Rep. 681 ;
26 W. N. C. 46 ; Donohue v. Whitney,
133 N. T. 178. As to the admissi-
bility of field-notes of surveyors
where questions of boundaries are
involved, see HoUiday v. Maddox, 39
Kan. 359; 18 Pac. Rep. 99; Bugger
V. Nickerson, 100 N. C. 1 ; 6 8. E. Rep.
746. A map showing an ancient
survey on which a more recent sur-
vey is based is not itself admissible
to corroborate the later survey,
though it may be relevant as evi-
dence of reputation to contradict it
Wyatt V. Duncan (Tex., 1893), 23 S.
W. Rep. 665. To prove the accuracy
of a private survey, evidence that
other surveys made by the same sur-
veyor had been found correct is ad-
missible. Sohunior v. Russell, 83
Tex. 83. But where the accuracy of
the map is not shown affirmatively,
still it may be used by a surveyor in
giving evidence to explain his testi-
mony to the jury. Griffith v. Rife,
72 Tex. 185 ; 13 S. W. Rep. 168 ; Dob-
son V. Whisivant, 101 N. C. 645 ; 8 S.
E. Rep. 126.
2 Richmond, etc. Co. v. Hissong
(Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 209 ; 13 id. 180 ;
Morrison v. McAfee (Oreg., 1893), 33
Pac. Rep. 400; Greer v. Louisville,
etc. Co. (Ky., 1893), 81 S. W. Rep. 649 ;
Seagel v. Railroad Co., 83 Iowa, 380 ;
Steinbrunner v. Railroad Co., 146 Pa.
St 504
3 See ante, %% 141a, 143a, 150a.
Price-currents have also been ad-
mitted to show the market value of
merchandise. 1 Whart Evid., §§ 671-
675.
* See §§ 337, 241 ; Mobile, etc. Co. v.
Ladd, 9 S. Rep. 109; 92 Ala. 887
Munshovver v. State, 55 Md. 11
Sisson V. Railroad Co., 14 Mich. 497
Kilgour V. Miles, 6 G. & J. (Md.) 274
People V. Cheekee, 61 Cal. 404 ; Reed
V. Wilson, 41 N. J. L.« 29 ; Finney v.
Callendar, 8 Minn. 41 ; Brough v.
Perkins, 6 Mod. 81 ; Sprowl v. Law-
rence, 33 Ala. 674 ; Sascer v. Bank, 4
Md. 420.
§ 146.] JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EECOEDS. 219
proper ofiScer, for the purpose of perpetuating the exact state
of the facts.' " Eecords are memorials or remembrances, in
rolls of parchment, now paper, of the proceedings and acts of
a court of justice, which hath power to hold pleas." ^ At
comraon law a judicial record might be proved by the record
itself, and this originally was the only manner of proof in a
plea of nul tiel record? Records might also be proved by
exemplified copies, or by duly authenticated copies certified
by an officer of the court, or by au examined copy sworn to
by a person who has made it or compared it with the original.
Exemplified copies are copies under the great seal attached in
chancery to which the record was brought up by a writ of oertio-
rari or under the sealof the court to which the record belonged.*
In America a copy exemplified under the seal of the court in
which the record belongs has been from an early date ad-
missible as evidence both at common law and by statute.
Such a copy is conclusive as proof even on the issue of nul
tiel record?
An office copy of a record is a copy authenticated by a cer-
tificate of an officer authorized to furnish copies,' and at com-
mon law it will be received upon his credit in the court where
the record belongs as of equal value to the original. If, as is
usually the rule throughout the United States, the court offi-
cer is authorized or directed by statute to furnish copies to all
applicants, and if his certified copy has been made primary
evidence of the original, then the certified or office copy will
be received in any court under the same supreme jurisdiction.'
An examined copy is one which the witness has compared
1 Davidson v. Murphy, 13 Conn, seems that if the court has no seal
317. none need be afa.\ed. Com. v.
2 Coke Lit. 360a. Phillips, 11 Pick. 80; Com. v. Down-
" Co. Lit. 360a; 3 BI. Com. 34, 381. ing, 4 Gray, 39. The records of the
4 Bull. N. P. 336, 337 ; 3 Inst. 173. Confederate courts are not provable
sBoyce v. Auditor, 51 N. W. Rep. by copies. Schaben's Estate, 6 Gt. of
457; 90 Mich. 314; Gunn v. Howell, CI. 330.
35 Ala. 144; Ladd v. Blunt, 4 Mass. 6 Bull. N. P. 339.
403; Vance v. Reardon, 3 Nott & 7 See §343; Flack v. Andrews, 86
McC. 399 ; Com. v. Phillips, 11 Pick. Ala. 395. In the absence of statute
38 ; Watrous v. Cunningham, 71 Cal. it may be presumed that the clerk
30 ; Mackey v. B. & P. Co., 19 D. C. has authority to furnish exemplified
383 ; Hallum v. Dickison, 47 Ark. copies. Gunn v. Peakes, 36 Minn. 177.
136; Vail v. Smith, 4 Cow. 71. It
220 JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EEOOEDS. [§ 146.
with the contents of the original record or with what the
officer or other person has read as such and which he is ready
to swear is a true cop3^ It is necessary, however, in proving
a record by an examined copy to show that the original record
was complete ' and was found in the proper custody and
place,^ though it is not absolutely essential for the persons
comparing the copies with the record to read them alternately.'
The record itself is always admissible where a copy of it
would be received.* If the record would be inadmissible, of
course the copj' is also inadmissible.' As a matter of practice,
however, at least in modern times, the production of the
records is usually dispensed with, the court being satisfied
with a literally exact copy of the record certified by the clerk
or exemplified by the court seal."
Where the court has power to set aside a verdict it is nec-
essary, in proving the verdict by a copy of the record, to show
what judgment was docketed by the clerk, for it may be that
the verdict was set aside.' This is not required where the
court has no power to set the verdict aside,' or in the trial of
1 Heath v. Page, 60 Pa. St 108. X>. C. 283. Where an issue is raised
^ Woods V. Banks, 14 N. H. 101 ; upon the existence of a domestic ju-
Goodrich v. Weston, 102 Mass. 363. dicial record, the question, thougli
3 Eolfe V. Dart, 2 Taunt. 52 : Lynde one of fact, is for the court alone, on
V. Judd, 8 Day (Conn.), 499 ; Hill v. the theory that the judge can exam-
Packard, 5 Wend. 387 ; Reed v. ine the very record itself. Currier v.
Lamb, 6 Jur. 828. Cf. 1 Whart. Richardson, 63 Vt. 617 ; Hall v. Will-
Evid., § 94; Dodge v. Gallatin, 130 iams, 6 Pick. 237; Carter v. Wilson,
N. Y. 117. A judgQientof a court of 1 T)ev. & Bat 362. As respects for-
record cannot be proven by the eign records provable only by copy,
judge's minutes. Moore v. Bruner, 31 the question, turning on the authen-
111. App. 400. ticity of a paper, is for the jury.
*See § 142c; State v. Bartlett, 47 Kentzer v. Kentzer, 3 Wash. St 166;
Ind. 396; Folsom v. Grassy, 73 Me. Adams v. Betz, 1 Watts (Pa.), 425;
370; Gray v. Davis, 37 Conn. 447; State v. Isham, 3 Hawks (S. C), 185;
Johnson v. Wakulla, 9 S. Rep. 690 ; Baldwin v. Hale, 17 Johns. (N. Y.)
28 Fia. 720. 272 ; Trotter v. Mills, G Wend. (N. Y.)
5 Meegan v. Boyle, 19 How. (TJ. S.) 512 ; De Sobry v. De Laistre, 3 Har.
130 ; Lamberton v. Windom. 18 & J. (Md.) 191.
Minn. 506; State v. Wells, 11 Ohio, ' Ayrey v. Davenport, 3 N. R. 474;
261. Donaldson v. Jude, 3 Bibb, 60. Cf.
6 Davenport v. Mahon (Pa., 1892), Baldridge v. Foust (Neb.), 44 N. W.
6 Kulp, 850 ; State v. Orrick, 106 Mo. Rep. 110.
Ill ; Cofer V. Schening (Ala., 1893), 13 SFelter v. Mulliner, 2 Johns. 181.
S. Rep. 123 ; Mackey v. B. & P. Co., 19
■§ 14:7.] JUDICIAL AND OTHEK PUBLIC EECOEDS. 221
an issue of fact out of a court of equity,' or where the only-
fact to be shown is that a verdict was rendered.^
§ 147. Proof of records of court of ecjuity and of courts
of inferior jurisdiction. — The rules applicable to the proof
of records of a court of common law are generally recognized
in proving the decrees and orders of courts of equity.' If
it is only sought to prove the fact that a decree was ren-
dered, copies of the, pleadings upon which it was based need
not be furnished, though, if the decree is pleaded in bar, it
will be necessary to show the whole record as respects the
matter in question.''
An answer in equity may, in the absence of statute, be
proved in civil cases by an examined copy,^ though in a pros-
ecution for perjury committed in an answer it is required to
produce the original with proof that the party was sworn.'
In either case the identity of the party must be shown, and
this may be done by proof of his handwriting or otherwise.'
In consequence of the looseness and lack of system with
which the records of inferior courts are so often kept, the
rigid requirements of the common law respecting .the proof
.of judicial records are relaxed as concerns them.^ If the in-
ferior court is of record (and that it is will be presumed), the
record may be proved at common law by an exemplified or
certified copy.'
iPitton V. Walter, 1 Stra. 163. The clerk must of necessity take
2 Barlow v. Dupuy, 1 Mart. 443. down the doings of the court in brief
5 See ante, § 146 ; Blower v. HoUis, notes. This he usually does in a
1 Cromp. & Mees. 396; 4 Com. Dig. minute-book called the 'docket,' from
97, tit " Evidence," o. 1 ; Gofer v. which a full, extended and intelligi-
Schening (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 133. ble record is afterwards to be made
* Wiuans v. Dunham, 5 Wend. 47 ; up. Until they can be so made, these
Wilson V. Conine, 3 Johns. 280. Cf. short notes must stand as the rec-
Thomas v. Stewart, 93 Ind. 346. ord." Pruden v. Alden. 33 Pick. 187 ;
51 Story's Eq. PI., §§ 870-876. 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 513; Holt v.
6 Rex Y. Morris, 3 Burr. 1189; Rex Maverick (Tex., 1894), 24 S. W. Rep.
V. Rensen, 3 CampB. 508. 533 ; Holcomb v. Cornish, 8 Conn.
7 Rex V. Morris, 5 Burr. li89; Hen- 375; Todd v. Johnson (Minn., 1893),
nell V. Lyon, 1 B. & Aid. 183. See 58 N. W. Rep. 864 ; Baldwin v. Prouty,
§ 139, " Identity." 13 Johns. 430 ; Com. v. Balkom, 3
8 Miller T. Knapp, 36 W. N. C. 39. Pick. 281; State v. Bartlett, 47 Me.
» "The courts are to take notice how 396; Goldstone v. Davidson, 19 Cal.
the records of their own and of other 41 ; Lancaster v. Lane, 19 111. 243.
courts are in fact made and kept See cases in note 3, infra, p. 337.
222 JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS. [§ 148.
"Where the court has no seal, an exemplification may be
dispensed with/ and if there is no clerk the judge may act as
such.^ Unless a strict compliance with a statutory form of
certification is required, any authentication affixed to a tran-
script of the record substantially identifying and authenticat-
ing it will suffice.' But where no record is kept, or where it
is incomplete or fragmentary, the proceeding in inferior courts
may be proven by the production of the justice's docketj* of
the original writ and pleadings, supplemented by the oath of
the justice or clerk or of some other competent witness.'
The certification of the records of courts of justices of the
peace is now largely regulated by statute, which should in-
variably be consulted. As respects the authentication of for-
eign judgments of justices' courts, the prevalent requirement
is that the transcript of the record or the certificate of the
judgment or other judicial act shall be signed by the justice
and his clerk, if there be any, and that to this authentication
shall be attached a certificate of a clerk of some superior court
of record certifying to the capacity of the justice himself.*
§ 148. Proof of records of the courts of other states.—
By the federal constitution it is enacted that "full faith and
credit shall be given, in each state, to the public acts, records
and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the con-
gress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which
1 Com. V. Downing, 4 Gray, 39, 30. W. Rep. 533 ; Dyson v. Wood, 3 B. & C.
- Statement v. Hinchman, 37 Pa. 449, 451 ; Strong v. Bradley, 13 Vt 9 ;
St. 479 ; Case v. Huey, 36 Kan. 353. Carpenter v. Willett, 18 How. Pr. 400 ;
3 Shea V. Man. E. Co., 8 N. Y. S. 333 ; Shea v. Man. Ry. Co., 8 N. Y. S. 383.
Am. Emi. Co. v. Fuller (Iowa, 1893), A recital in a transcript of a record
50 N. W. Rep. 48 ; Mackey v. B. & of a justice's court that a party was
P. R. Co., 19 D. C. 383 ; Swope v. duly served is conclusive of that fact
Paul (Ind., 1893), 31 N. E. Rep. 43; (Payne v. Taylor, 84 111. App. 491), and
English V. Sprague, 33 Me. 440 ; Com. service may be shown by parol. Wil-
V. Ford, 14 Gray, 399 ; MoGrath v. kerson v. Schoonmaker, 77 Tex. 615.
Seagrave, 4 Allen, 443; Baur v. Beal « Trader v. McKee, 3 111. 558; Dra-
(Colo., 1890), 33 Pac. Rep. 345; Stamper goo v. Graham, 9 Ind. 313; Bank v.
V. Gay (Wyo., 1890), 33 Pac. Rep. 69; Evans, 33 Iowa, 303; Gay v. Lloyd,
Webster v. Daniel, 47 Ark. 181 ; Mc- 1 Greene (Iowa), 78 ; Bank v. Hardin,
Dermott v. Barnum, 19 Mo. 304. 1 Wright (Ohio), 480 ; Belton v.
<Beardsley v. Brame, 85 Cal. 134. Fisher, 44 111. 33; N. Y, Code C. P.
5 Holt v. Maverick (Tex., 1894), 34 S. 989 ; Beirn v. Borst, 5 Wend. 393.
§ 148.] JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EEOOEDS. 223
such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the
effect thereof." ^
In carr^ung out this provision congress has prescribed that
" the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any
state shall be proved or admitted in any other court within
the United States by the attestation of the clerk and the seal
of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a cer-
tificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as
the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And
the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as
aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in
every court within the United States as they have by law or
usage in the courts of the state from whence such records are
or shall be taken." ^
In construing this statute, the attestation by the clerbmust
be in the form regularly employed in the state in which the
record belongs. If, as is essential, it is so certified by the
judge of the court,' the judge's certificate, which is the only
admissible evidence of that fact,* is conclusive.' If the court
has a seal it must be affixed to the clerk's attestation," while
if it has none, this fact should appear in the attestation or
certificate.'
In conformity with the requirement that the copy shall be
attested by the clerk, an attestation by an under or deputy
clerk will cause the transcript to be rejected," though certified
1 Const. U. S., art. IV, § 1. * Smith v. Blagge, 1 Johns. Cas. 238 ;
2 Statute U. S., May 36, 1790 (U. S. Holdridge v. Marsh, 30 Mo. App. 352.
Stats, at Large, L. & B. Ed., 122) ; 5 Ferguson v. Harwood, 7 Cranch,
Hall V. McKay, 78 Tex. 248; Eand v. 408; Bean v. Loryea, 81 Cal. 131;
Hanson (Mass., 1891), 28 N. E. Rep. 6 ; Andrews v. Flack, 88 Ala. 294.
Susenbach v. Wagner, 41 Minn. 108 ; ^ Turner v. Waddington, 3 Wash.
Rea V. Scully, 76 Iowa, 348. The pro- 186 ; Allen v. Thaxter, 1 Blackf. 390 ;
ceedings of the courts of the Cher- Dunlap v. Waldo, 6 N. H. 450.
ok,ee nation and of the territories are ' Kirkland V. Smith, 2 Mart (N. S.)
under the operation of this provision. 497 ; Craig v. Brown, 1 Pet 352, 353 ;
Mehlin v. Ice, 56 Fed. Rep. 12. Simons v. Cooks, 29 Iowa, 334 ; Strode
3 Van Storch v. Griffin, 71 Pa. St v. Churoliill, 2 Litt (Ky.) 75.
240 ; Craig y. Brown, 1 Pet C. C. 352 ; '1 Greenl. on Evid., g 506 ; Dono-
Burnell v. Weld, 76 N. Y. 103 ; Drum- hoo v. Braunon, 1 Overt 328 ; Sam-
mond V. Magruder, 9 Cranch, 122 ; son v. Overton, 4 Bibb, 409 ; Thomas
Shown V. Barr, 29 Iowa, 296. v. Tanner, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 152;
224: JUDICIAL AND OTHER P0BLIO EECOEDS. [§ 148.
by the judge to be in due form,' unless the court has no clerk,
the judge discharging his duties, and these facts are stated in
the certificate.^ The certificate of the judge must show that
he is the chief or presiding judge of the court,' and that he
Was such at the time of certifying the copy of the records,^
though if the court has no chief judge, a certification by all
the judges will not be rejected.' If the certificate is by the
"first judge" or senior judge it will be necessary to show
aliunde that he was the presiding or chief judge.^ A cer-
tificate signed by a chief circuit judge of a certain district
must show on its face- that the court from which the record
purports to issue is in his circuit and that he is the presiding
judge of that court.'' The presiding judge must state that at-
testation is in due form,' and that the clerk certifying was at
the date thereof the clerk of the court.' "Where the court no
longer exists, the clerk and presiding judge of a court with
which its records and powers have been consolidated may fur-
nish the requisite attestation.'"
This statutory mode of authenticating records is not exclu-
sive of any other mode which a court may deem proper." In-
Schnertzell v. Young, 3 H. & McHen. "> Elliott v. McClelland, 17 Ala. 206 ;
(Md.) 502. Randall v. Burtis, 57 Tex. 362 ; Geron
1 Morris v. Patcliin, 24 N. Y. 894 v. Felder, 15 Ala. 304
Contra, Youug v. Glinzer, 1 Greene s Ordway v. Conroy, 4 Wis. 45.
(Iowa), 196. 9 Johnson v. Howe's Adm'r, 2 Stew.
2 Cox V. Jones, 52 Ga. 438 ; Low v. (Ala.) 27.
Burrows, 12 Gal. 181; Spencer v. I'Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa, 116;
Langdon, 21 III. 192; Stewart v. Scottv. Blanchard, 8 Mart 303vCraig,
Swazey, 23 Miss. 502. The official v. Brown, 1 Pet. C. 0. 352 ; Hunt v.
occupying the dual capacity must at- Lyle, 8 Yerg, 142 ; Barbour v. Watts,
test as clerk and certify as judge. 2 A. K. Marsh. 290, 293; Balfour v.
Melius V. Houston, 41 Miss. 59, cases Chew, 5 Mart 517; Clarke v. Rice,
supra. 15 R. I. 132 ; Steere v. Tenney, 50 N.
3 Moyer v. Lyons, 38 Mo. App. 635 ; H. 461 (Confederate court).
Von Storch v. Griffin, 71 Pa. St. 240. " Thrasher v. Ballard, 33 W. Va.
* Settle V. Allison, 8 Ga. 201 ; 285 ; Kingman v. Cowles, 103 Mass.
Stephenson 7. Bannister, 3 Bibb, 369 ; 283 ; Ex parte Povall, 3 Leigh, 816 ;
Morris v. Patchin, 24 N. Y. 394 ; Pratt Kean v. Rice, 12 S. & R. 203, 208 ;
V. King, 1 Greg. 49 ; Central Bank v. Pepoon v. Jenkins, 2 Johns. Cas. 119 ;
Veasey, 14 Ark. 671. Davis v. Furman, 21 Kan. 131 ; State
5Arnoldv.Frazier,5Strobh.(S.C.)8. v. Hunter, 94 N. C. 829; Louisville,
6 Hudson V. Daily, 13 Ala. 722. Of. etc. Co. v. Parish (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E.
Taylor v. Kilgore, 33 id. 214 Rep. 122.
§ 149.] JUDICIAL AND ©THEE PUBLIC KK00ED3. 225
asmuch as the statute by its terms refers only to courts having
seals, clerks and a presiding judge, it is inferred that courts
of limited powers and jurisdiction, as courts of justices of the
peace and municipal courts, whose procedure is usually regu-
lated by statute or local usage, and varies greatly in different
states, are not included in it. The copies of proceedings of
such courts are therefore to be authenticated in the manner
prescribed by the laws of the state into whose courts they are
introduced.^
The statute does not apply to the authentication of copies
of the record of a state court for use in a federal court or
vice versa,' or of copies of the record of one federal court to
be used in another,' or of copies or exemplifications of the
record of a private writing, as a deed or will recorded under
a state statute.* In such case a common-law exemplification
under the seal of the court will suffice.'
If the requirements of the statute are substantially com-
plied with, a properly certified copy will not be rendered in-
admissible because of mere formal and verbal irregularities,'
or because it does not show the identity of the party,' or the
grounds on which the judgment was based.*
§ 149. Proof of foreign judgments. — At common law the
records of foreign courts could be proved by exemplified
copies under seal of the foreign state, by sworn and examined
1 Howard v. Coon, 93 Mich. 443 ; v. Hamilton, 90 Ala. 354 ; Hallum v.
Blackwell v. Glass, 43 Ark. 309; Dickinson,54 Ariz.311; 15S. W.Rep.
Bryan V. Farnsworth, 19 Minn. 239; 775.
Mahurin v. Bickford, 6 N. H. 567 ; ' Missouri Glass Co. v. Gregg (Tex.,
Silver Lake v. Harding, 5 Ohio, 545 ; 1890), 16 S. W. Rep. 174. A certified
Blodgett V. Jordan, 6 Vt. 580 ; Brown copy of an assignment of a foreign
V. Edison, 33 Vt. 435. judgment constituting a part of the
2Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 318; record is admissible as evidence of
Adams v. Way, 33 Conn. 419. Con- the assignment Coughran v. Gil-
tra, Grant v. Levan, 4 Pa. St 393. man (Iowa, 1891), 46 N. W. Rop. 1005.
3 Mason v. Lawrason, 1 Cranch, So a properly authenticated certifi-
190. cate by a clerk of a court of probate
* Russell V. Kearney, 27 Ga. 96 ; that a person is an administrator is
Carlisle v. Tuttle, 30 Ala. 613. sufficient Abercrombie v. Stillman,
8 Meuster v. Spalding, 6 McLean, 34. 77 Tex. 589.
6 Bailey v. Martin, 119 Ind. 103; s Railroad Co. v. Thornton, 12 La.
Dwarak v. More, 25 Neb. 735, 741 ; Ann. 736.
Gunn V. Peakes, 36 Minn. 177 ; Bogan
15
226 JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EBCOEDS. [§ 150,
copies, or by copies duly certified by an official authorized by
the foreign court.* The handwriting of certifying officers
must be proved where their, certificates are not exemplified
by the great seal,^ but the certificate of a notary to its genu-
ineness has been held sufficient.' The seal of the foreign court
must be proved,* though judicial notice will be taken of the
great seal of the foreign government and of the seals of courts
of admiralty.^ If the court has no seal a seal will not be re-
quired,^ but a stricter degree of proof of the clerk's signature
"will perhaps be necessary.'
As a general rule in the proof and construction of foreign
records,^ a court will be entitled to every aid which will place
it exactly in the position of a court of similar jurisdiction in
the foreign state. It has a right, therefore, to require an ex-
planation of technical terms, to examine the certified foreign
copy, and to require a translation of it if necessary, and proper
information bearing upon any special law' or peculiar rule of
construction which obtains in the foreign state.'"
§ 150. Kecords of surrogates' courts.^ A will is not ad-
missible as evidence until it has been probated in due form in
the surrogates' courts," or in some court having power and
I'Gunn V. Peakes, 36 Minn. 177; ling v. Herman, 17 Mich. 524; Pick-
Church v. Chibbart, 3 Cranch, 238; But- ard V. Bailey, 36 N. H. 153; Thomp-
trickv. Allen, 8 Mass. 373; Pickardv. son v. Mason, 4 Bradw. (111.) 452;
Bailey, 6 Foster (N. H.), 153. Cf. Kop- Delafield v. Hand, 8 Johns. 310.
perl V. Nagy, 37111. App. 23. It seems 5 Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 484;
doubtful whether a foreign record can Thompson v. Stewart, 3 Conn. 171;
be proved by an ofSce copy or by a cer- Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335 ; post,
titled copy unless the certificate it- §§ 343, 844.
self has been properly exemplified <■ Packard v. Hill, 7 Cow. 434.
under the seal of the court from 'Black v. Lord Bray brook, 3 Stark,
which it proceeds or by the great 7 ; Thompson v. Ste^vart, 3 Conn. 171.
seal of the state. Griswold v. Pit- s United States v. McRae, L. R. 3
cairn, 3 Conn. 85; Las Caygas v. Ch. 86; Dore v. Thornburgh (CaU
Larionda, 4 Mart. (La.) 383 ; Packard 1891), 37 Pac. Rep. 30.
V. Hill, 7 Cow. 434 ; Peterman v. ' Arkansas v. Bowen, 20 D. C. 291.
Laws, 6 Leigh (Va.), 533; Catlett v. lo Di Sora v. Phillips, 33 Law J. Ch.
Insurance Co., 1 Paine (U. S. C. Ct.), (H. L. Cas.) 139 ; In re Cliffs Trusts
594 ; Stein y. Bowman, 13 Pet 209 ; (1893), 2 Ch. 239. See article in 35
Cavam v. Stewart, 1 Stark. 533. Cent L. J. 341.
2 See cases in last note. n Kittredge v. Folsom, 8 N. H. HI ;
3 Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335. Ochoa v. Miller, 59 Tex. 461 ; Mour-
<See post, § 244; Gardner v. Col. sund v. Priess (Tex., 1892), 19 S. W.
Ins. Co., 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 511 ; Cap- Rep. 775.
§ 150a.] JUDICIAL AND OTHEE TUBLIC EECOEDS.
227-
jurisdiction over the administration of the estates of dece-
dents ; and in neai'ly all the states probate is conclusive of the
validity and testamentary character of the writing in regard
to both real and personal property.'
After probate the will itself,^ or a properly authenticated
copy, may be read in proof of any matter of fact therein to
which it is relevant.' "Where the fact of probate is in issue
the decree of the probate court, exemplified in the form which
is observed by courts of record in certifying to transcripts
from their records, is admissible as conclusive of the fact.*
§ 150a. Proof of returns on writs A return is a written
statement or certificate of a sheriff or other officer serving a
writ showing what he did, with particulars of time and place,
and it may be employed as primary evidence of his acts and
their result in executing the writ. The return should show
affirmatively that all the requirements of the law have been
strictly pursued,' and should state briefly the course pursued
by the officer in order that the court may be placed in a posi-
tion to decide upon its admissibility as evidence of service.*
'Dublin V. Chadbourne, 16 Masa
433 ; Patten v. Tallman, 27 Me. 17 ;
Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68, 73 ; Jud-
eon V. Lake, 3 Day, 818; Lewis v.
Lewis, 5 La. 388 ; Bogardus v. Olark,
4 Paige, 623; Peeble's Appeals, 15
S. i& R 42; Tompkias v. Tompkins,
1 Story, 547 ; Harrison v. Rowan, 3
Wash. C. C. 580 ; Darby v. Mayer, 10
Wheat. 465. See post, § 143. See
contra, as to devises of real property,
Barker v. MoFerran, 26 Pa. St. 211 ;
Harven v. Spring, 10 Ired. 80 ; Ran-
dall V. Hodges, 3 Bland, 47 ; Darbey
V. Mayer, 10 Wheat. 470; Robertson
V. Barbour, 6 B. Mon. 537.
2 Manning v. Purcell, 24 L. J. Ch.
538; Compton v. Bloxham, 3 Coll.
201; Child v. Ellsworth, 2 D. M.
& G. 683; Oppenheim v. Henry, 9
Hare, 802; Gauntlett v. Carter, 17
Beav. 590 ; Turner v. Hellard, 30 Ch.
D. 390.
'Hurst V. Mellinger, 78 Tex. 189;
Dupeyster v. Gagoni, 84 Ky. 403;
Lockwood V. Lockwood, 57 Hun, 337 ;
Nelson v. Potter, 50 N. J. L. 636; 15
Atl. Rep. 375. See § 1416. In the
case of a foreign will it has been held
that it should be accompanied by a
copy of the order of probate. Green
T. Blair, 23 S. W. Rep. 256.
4 See §§ 146, 148, 149; Chase v.
Hathaway, 14 Mass. 333, 337 ; Judge'
V. Briggs, 3 N. H. 309 ; Farnsworth
V. Briggs, 6 N. H. 561 ; Lindsley v.
O'Reilly, 50 N. J. L. 636 ; 15 Atl. Rep.
879. As to other facts in probate
courts, see Roberts v. Connell, 8 S. W.
Rep. 636; Williams v. Mitchell, 112
Mo. 800 (proof of order of a probate
court) ; Sherwood V. Baker (Mo., 1891),
16 S. W. Rep. 938 ; Simmons v. Saul,
138 U. S. 439.
5 Walsh V. Anderson, 185 Mass. 65 ;
Sweeney v. Girolo, 154 Pa. St. 609 ;
Glines v. Iron Hall, 32 Civ. Pro. R.
437.
« O'Leary v. Durant, 70 Tex. 409 ;
Henvy v. Tilton, 19 Vt. 447 ; Merritt
V. White, 31 Mass. 438 ; Philadelpliia
V. Newkumet, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 504;
Tallman v. B. & O. R. Co., 45 Fed.
Rep. 156; Boyle v. Whitney, 8 Pa.
228
JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EEOOEDS.
[§ 150a.
In accordance with the presumption that an official has
properly performed his duty,' the courts are inclined to favor
the sufficiency of returns and to admit them whenever it is
possible to do so.^
The signature to the return should be by the officer or in
his name and not by deputy.' The return should be indorsed
upon the writ/ in language sufficiently certain and definite to
enable the court to comprehend the subject-matter described
and the action of the officer in regard to it. Parol evidence
is always admissible to explain the language of the return or
to identify the subject-matter, though not always to vary or
contradict it,° unless fraud is alleged." A return which is not
properly filed is invalid ' and inadmissible because it is incom-
plete. Until filing, however, the power of the oflicer over tbe
return is absolute and he may amend it without leave of court.'
After filing, the power to permit an amendment is discretion-
ary with the court,' but permission to amend will usually be
granted where the actual facts in the case require it on appli-
cation by the officer before,'" or even after," his official term
has expired.
Co. Ct R. 501 ; People v. Kent Circ.
Judge, 41 Mich. 723.
• See post, § 341.
2 Verbal irregularities will thus be
disregarded. Galliano v. Kilfoy, 94
Cal. 86 ; Veazey v. Brigman, 93 Ala.
548; Forbes v. McHaffle, 33 Neb,
743 ; Cheshire v. Wagon Co., 89 Ga.
249 ; Livar v. Livar, 36 Tex. App. 115.
3 Rowley v. Howard, 23 Gal. 401 ;
Cox V. Montford, 66 Ga. 63 (signature
by mark); Mitchell v. Com. (Va.,
1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 480 ; Simmes v.
Simmes, 88 Ky. 643 ; Emley v. Drum,
36 Pa. St. 133 ; Callender v. Olcott, 1
Mich. 844 ; Gibbons v. Pickett (Fla.,
1893), 13 S. Rep. 17; Reinhart v.
Lugo, 86 Cal. 395. Contra, Kelly v.
Harrison, 69 Miss. 456.
* Dickson v. Peppers, 7 Ired. (N. 0.)
439.
5 Payne v. Billinghara, 10 Iowa,
360.
6 McComb V. Council Bluffs, infra;
Cully V. Shirk, infra.
'I State V. Melton, 8 Mo. 417 ; Beall
T. Shattuok, 53 Miss. 358 ; Nelson v.
Cook, 19 111. 440.
8 Spencer v. Fuller, 68 Ga. 73; Wil-
cox V. Monday, 89 Ind. 333 ; Nelson
V. Cook, 19 IlL 440; Welch v. Joy, 13
Pick. 477.
"Austin V. Day, 17 Pick. (Mass.)
208; Miller v. Shackelford, 4 Dana
(Ky.), 364 ; Johnson v. Day, 17 Pick.
(Mass.) 108 ; Baker v. Davis, 33 N. H.
37; Com. Union Ins. Co. v. Everhart,
88 Va. 958; Mills v. Howland, 2
N. D. 30 ; Turner v. Holden, 109 N. C.
183; Shufeldt v. Barlass, 33 Neb. 785.
i» Williams v. Moore, 68 Ga. 585;
Hutchins v. Com'rs, 16 Minn. 13;
n Bentell v. Oliver, 89 Ga. 346 ; Scrugs, 46 Mo. 371. Of. Williamsoa
Avery v. Bowman, 39 N. H. 595; v. Wright, 75 Me. 35; Foreman v.
Ki-en V. Briggs, 46 Me. 467 ; Dwiggins Carter, 9 Kan. 674.
V. Cook, 71 Ind. 579; Scrugs v.
§ 160a.] JUDICIAL AND OTHER P03LIO EECOEDS.
229
The conclusiveness of the return as to all facts stated
therein, both as between the parties to the writ and their
privies,' and against the officei- himself,^ is supported by a
majority of the decisions. When, however, the return is
sought to be used as evidence by the officer in his own behalf,
the principle of estoppel does not apply, and its invalidity may
be shown or the facts stated therein may be contradicted by
any proper and competent evidence.' The same rule is appli-
cable where the return is introduced as evidence in an action
between third persons, neither parties nor privies to the writ,
and where the facts in the return are only collateral to the
main issue.*
Service of a writ by publication may be shown by the pro-
duction of the writ as published in the newspaper, together
with the affidavit of the publisher setting forth that the same
was properly published, with the facts of the times and places
of publication as the same may be required under the statutes
regulating this matter.'
Dunn V. Rogers, 43 111. 230 ; Sawyer
V. Harmon, 136 Mass. 414 ; McArthur
Y. Currie, 32 Ala. 75;' Clayton v.
State, 84 Ark. 16 ; Mahurin v. Brack-
etfc, 5 N. H. 9.
1 Cully V. Shirk, 131 Ind. 76 ; Philips
V. Elwell, 14 Ohio St. 240 ; Flanniken
V. Nea), 67 Tex. 629 ; Ex parte Dur-
bin, 102 Mo. 100 ; Lowery v. Caldwell,
139 Mass. 88 ; Barrett v. Copeland, 18
Vt 67; Hotchkiss v. Hunt, 56 Me.
252 ; In re Ah Foy, 45 Fed. Rep. 795 ;
Cozine v. Walter, 55 N. Y. 304 ; United
States V. Gayle, 45 Fed. Rep. 107 ; Hig-
ley V. Pollock (Nev., 1892), 27 Pac. Kep.
895 ; Ringold v. Edwards, 7 Ark. 86 ;
Egery v. Buchanan, 5 Cal. 56 ; Heath
V. Missouri R. Co., 83 Mo. 624. Contra,
Johnson v. Gregory, 4 Wash. St. 109 ;
Grady v. Gosline, 48 Ohio St. 665;
Wilson V. Shipman, 31 Neb. 573;
McComb V. Insurance Co., 83 Iowa,
247 ; Wheeler V. McLaughlin, 8 N.T. S.
95; Godwin v. Mends, 106 N. C. 448;
Burton v. Schenck, 40 Minn. 52.
estate V. Ruff (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E.
Rep. 124; Hawey v. Foster, 64 Cal.
296 ; Walter v. Moore, 90 N. C. 41 ;
Shotwell V. Hamblen, 23 Miss. 156.
3 Stanton v. Hodges, 6 Vt. 64 ; Earl
V. Camp, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 562 ; Car-
nell V. Cook, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 310 ; Hal-
corab V. Stubblefield, 76 Tex. 310.
^Knutsen v. Davis (Minn., 1893), 53
N. W. Rep. 646; Allen v. Gray, 11
Conn. 95; Kendall v. White, 3 Me.
245; Field v. United States, 9 Pet.
(U. S.) 183 ; Henderson v. Evans, 14
Barb. (N. Y.) 15; Bolt v. Burnell, 9
Mass. 96.
5 See ante, § 145 ; State v. Georgia
Co., 10& N. C. 310 ; Roberts v. Roberts
(Colo., 1893), 31 Pac. Rep. 941 ; Lane
V. Innes, 43 Minn. 137; Frisk v.
Reigelman, 43 id. 137 ; Wilkinson v.
Conaty, 65 Mich. 614 ; White v. Hin-
ton, 3 Wyo. 753; Taylor v. Coots, 32
Neb. 30; Michael v. Michael, 137 111.
485.
230 JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EECOEDS. . [§ 1505.
§ 15011). The effect of judicial records as evidence. — Tho
conclusiveness of a judgment in a prior suit as evidence in a
suit between the same parties for the same cause of action is
based upon the legal principle that public policy demands
that unnecessary and perhaps endless litigation should be
avoided, and that a cause once fairly tried and determined by
a court of competent jurisdiction should be considered forever
closed and settled. The judgment of a court having jurisdic-
tion is binding upon all the parties and upon all those in
privity with them, whether in estate, in law or in blood, and
whether this identity of interest is successive or mutual and
concurrent.! But a stranger to the record, i. e., a person who
, is not interested in the original litigation directly or indirectly,
and who could neither prosecute nor defend, offer evidence,
cross-examine the witnesses, or appeal from the result, and
who does not occupy the position of a privy, is not estopped.
He may therefore, when in a subsequent suit his rights or
title is collaterally affected by the judgment, show that it is
invalid and void as to him.^ The party in whose favor the
judgment has been rendered and his privies are bound by it
to the same extent as the party against whom it was ren-
I Michaels v. Post, 31 Wall. 436; Jones v. Ludlow, 6 Ohio Cir. Ct Rep.
Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla. 353 ; Chapin 57 ; Guaranty T. & Safe Dep. Co. v.
V. Curtis, 33 Conn. 388; Key v. Dent, Green Cove Spring & M. R Co., U
14 Md. 86; Emery v. Fowler, 39 Me. S. Ct 513; 139 U. S. 137; Franz Falk
336; Daily V. Sharkey, 39 Mo. App. Brew. Co. v. Hirsch, 78 Tex. 193;
518; Hancock v. Flynn, 8 N. Y. S. Griffith v. Happersberger, 86 Cal.
133 ; State v. Brook, 39 Mo. App. 386 ; 605 ; Trauerman v. Lippincott, 39
Averell v. Sec. Nat. Bank, 19 D. C. Mo. App. 478 ; Haywood v. Thacher,
346; Cook v. Rice, 91 Cal. 664; Nor- 19 N. Y. S. 883; Missouri R. R. Co. v.
ton V. Doherty, 8 'Gray (Mass.), 372 ; Heidenheimer, 83 Tex. 195. "When-
Bigelow V. Winsor, 1 Gray (Mass.), ever any judgment is offered as evi-
' 299, 303 ; Webber v. Mackey, 31 111. dence, the party against whom it is
App. 369; Glass v. Black well, 48 so offered may prove that the court
Ark. 55. which gave it had no jurisdiction, or
^ Vose V. Mprton, 4 Cush. (Mass.) that it has been reversed, or, if he is
37, 31 ; Roman Cath. Archbishop v. a stranger to it, that it was obtained
Shipman, 11 Pac. Rep. 343; 69 Cal. by any fraud or collusion to which
586 ; Fidelity I. T. & S. D. Co., 33 neither he nor any person to whom
W. Va, 761 ; Franklin Sav. Bank v. he is privy was a party." Stephen's
Taylor, 13 111. 376 ; 33 N. E. Rep. 397 ; Digest, art 46.
Masterson v. Little, 75 Tex. 683;
§ 151.] JUDICIAL AUD OTHEE PUBLIC EE00ED3. 2f31
dered. The judgment is equally conclusive as an estoppel
upon both.'
§ 151. The eifects of judgments on those in privity with
the parties. — The doctrine by which a judgment is deemed
to be conclusive upon the parties and those who are in privity
with them is based on the principles that are applicable to the
■admissions of parties in privity.^ Thus, an heir' is estopped
by a judgment against the ancestor, and generally the same
rule is applicable to those who take an estate in dower,* by
the curtesy, or as a legatee, devisee,' grantee or mortgagee.'
A judgment of ouster on a writ of quo viarranto is conclusive
evidence against subordinate officials whose title is derived
from the official ousted.' A judgment against the assignor,
rendered while the property assigned was in his possession
'and relating to it, is evidence against the assignee,' and the
same principle is recognized as regards an executor or admin-
istrator in the case of a judgment against or in favor of the
deceased person whom he represents.'
Though a reversioner is not bound by a judgment against
his tenant unless he intervene and become an actual party to
the suit,'" yet, as remainder-men derive their successive estates
from a common source of title, it is clear that a judgment
which was rendered against any one of them which overthrew
that title would be binding on all." So a judgment rendered
1 Wood V. Davis, 7 Cranch, 271 ; 8 Adams v. Barnes, 17 Mass. 365 ;
Strayer v. Johnson, 1 AU. Rep. 233 ; Chapin v. 'curtis, 33 Conn. 388 ;
110 Pa. St 31. Hartje v. Vulcanized Fiber Co., 44
2Kirli V. Kirk, 33 N. E. Rep. 552; Fed. Rep. 648; Huntley v. Holt, 23
137 N. Y. 510; Kent v. Church, 136 Atl. Rep. 34; 59 Conn. 103; Carlyle
N. Y. 10 ; 32 N. E. Rep. 704; Howes v. Carlyle W. L. & Power Co., 36 111.
V. Rucker, 94 Ala. 166 ; Lawson v. App. 28.
Kelly, 82 Tex. 497. 'Clapp v. Herrick, 129 Mass. 293;
3 SeS cases in preceding note. Emery v. Fowler, 39 Me. 336 ; Park-
♦Tahquey v. O'Tonnel, 133 Ind. 63. hurst v. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 392; Key
SQutram v. Sherwood, 3 East, 353 ; v. Dent, 14 Md. 86 ; Ballou v. Ballou,
Turner v. Gate (Ga., 1893), 16 S. E. HON. Y. 402; Carver v. Jackson, 4
Rep. 971. Peters, 85, 86; Case v. Reeve, 14
eSatterwhite y. Shirley, 25 N. E. Johns. 81.
Rep. 1100 ; Amer. Mortg. Co. v. Boyd, "> Thompson v. McCormick (IlL,
«2 Ala. 139 ; Brown v. Bocquin (Ark., 1891), 36 N. E. Rep. 373.
1893), 30 N. W. Rep. 813. " Pyke v. Crouch, 1 Ld. Eaym. 73a
7 Rex V. Mayor, 5 T. R. 66, 73, 76;
Rex vr. Hebron, 3 Stra. 1109.
232 JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EEC0ED3 [§ 152.
against a trustee during the existence of the trust binds the
beneficiaries ' and their next of kin ^ or personal representa-
tives.
§ 152. Must Ibe final and on the merits. — A judgment is
conclusive on the parties only in case it is final; that is,
" where it puts an end to the action by declaring that the
plaintiff has or has not entitled himself to the remedy for
which he sues." ' Where the plaintiff is nonsuited or the suit
is remanded or discontinued by plaintiff, or where the suit has
not been prosecuted to a determination, the judgment is not
conclusive.^ So also the judgment must have been rendered
on the merits ; for if it be based on a mere technical defect,'
or lack of legal capacity of either party to sue,' or of jurisdic-
tion by the court, it will not be a bar.' Thus, where the de-
fendant interposes an equitable defense which he subsequently
withdraws, he is not precluded from employing that defense
in another suit.^ But the filing of an appeal or the giving of
a stay bond pending an appeal from the judgment does not, so
long as the judgment is final and upon the merits, operate to
render the judgment inadmissible as evidence in a subsequent
action at any time during the pendency of the appeal."
1 PoUitz V. Fi-ust Co. 53 Fed. Eep. 55 Fed. Eep. 49 ; Sanford v. Oberlin
210 ; Robertson v. Van Cleave (Ind. College, 31 Pac. Rep. 1088 ; 50 Kaa
1891), 36 N. E. Rep. 899. ' 343. Cf. Piloher v. Ligon (Ky., 1890),
2 In re Slrant, 5 N. Y. S. 137 ; 136 N. 15 a W. Rep. 513.
y. 301; 37 N. E. Rep. 259. 5 Kern v. Wilson, 48 N. W. Rep.
3 Anderson's Law Diet 919 ; McDonald v. Rainor, 8 Johns.
4MoGourkey v. Railroad Co., 146 443.
U. S. 536; Hull v. Blake, 13 Mass. 6 Jones v. Hunter, 33111. App. 445;
155; Holbert's Estate, 57 Cal. 357; Rudolph v. Underwood, 15 S. E. Rep.
Dunham v. Carson (S. C, 1893), 15 S. 55 ; 88 Ga. 664 ; Hemminge v. Heald
E. Rep. 960; Sivers v. Sivers (Cal., (N. J., 1893), 36 Atl. Rep. 449; Rodg-
1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 571 ; Stedman v. era v. Levy (Neb., 1893), 54 N. W.
Potterie, 139 Pa. St. 100 ; Gapen v. Rep. 1080 ; Hendricks v. Clouts (Ga.,
Bretlernitz (Neb., 1890), 47 N. "VV. Rep. 1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 119.
918; Louisville, N. A. &C. Ry. Co. V. 'Gilmer v. Morris, 46 Fed. Rep.
Wylie (Ind., 1890), 37 N. E. Rep. 333 ; Estil v. Taul, 3 Yerger, 467, 470 ;
133 ; Parks v. Dunlap, 86 Cal. 189 ; Bank v. Lewis, 8 Pick. 118 ; Dixon v.
State V. Anderson (Fla., 1890), 8 S. Sinclair, 4 Vt. 354; Davie v. Davis
Rep. 1 ; Hallum v. Dickinson, 47 Ark. (N. C, 1890), 13 S. E. Rep! 240.
136; Kaufman v. Schneider, 35 111. soookerill v. Stafford, 103 Mo. 57.
App. 356 (ruling on appealable order) ; 9 Willard v. Ostrander (Kan., 1893),
Danielson V. Northwestern Fuel Co., 33 Pac. Rep. 1092; Stevens v. Ste-
§ 163.]
JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EEC0ED3.
233
§ 153. Judgments only conchisive as to material facts in
issue. — A judgment is conclusive as an estoppel in a subse-
quent suit only so far as it determines those particular facts
which were directly in issue.* A party is called upon to affirm
or deny facts material to the issue only, and for this reason
the judgment record is not binding upon the parties in respect
to those matters which are neither material nor relevant to
the controversy. So the judgment is not evidence of any
matter of fact which was merely collateral to the issue or re-
motely or incidentally involved, or which can only be inferred
by argument, or the decision of which was not necessary to
the issue.^
But while it is necessary that the fact which the judgment
is introduced to prove should have been material in the prior
cause and the issue should be substantially identical, it is not
essential that the issue in the earlier case should have been
joined upon the precise ^oint which is in issue in the later pro-
ceedings, if the proof of the existence of the fact in issue in
the latter was necessary to the rendition of the judgment.'
vens, 23 N. Y. S. 530; 69 Hun, 333;
Westmoreland v. Richardson Co.
(Tex., 1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 167;
O'Malia v. Glynn, 42 111. App. 51 ;
Harris v. Barnhart (Gal., 1898), 33
Pac. Rep. 589. Contra, Texas I. R.
Co. V. Jackson, 33 S. W. Rep. 1030.
1" Every judgment is conclusive
proof, as against parties and privies,
of facts directly in issue in the case
actually decided by the court and
appearing from the judgment itself
to be the ground on which it was
based, unless evidence was admitted
in the action in which the judgment
was delivered which is excluded in
the action in which that judgment is
intended to be proved." Stephen's
Digest, art. 41.
2 De Grey, J., in Duchess of King-
ston's Case, 30 How. St. Tr. 538. The
court in this case says further : " The
judgment of a court of concurrent
jurisdiction directly upon the point
is a bar, or as evidence conclusive
upon the same parties, upon the same
matter directly in question in an-
other court ; secondly, that a judg-
ment of a court of exclusive juris-
diction, directly upon the point, is, in
like manner, conclusive upon the
same matter, between the same par-
ties, coming incidentally in question
in another court, for a different pur-
pose." Rice V. Aiken (Tex., 1893), 23
S. W. Rep. 101; Gillim v. Daviess
Co. (Ky., 1890), 14 S. W. Rep. 838 ;
Walker V. Leslie (Ky., 1890), 14 S. W.
Rep. 683; Miller v. Union Switch
Sig. Co., 59 Hun, 634; In re Holmes,
131 N. Y. 80; Springer v. Bien, 10
N. Y. S. 530; 27 N. E. Rep. 1076;
Dodd V. Scott, 46 N. W. Rep. 1057 ;
Rhoads v. Metropolis, 36 111. App.
123.
' Adams v. Pearson, 7 Pick. 341 ;
Duden v. Maley, 43 Fed. Rep. 407 ;
Hudson V. Yost, 13 S. E. Rep. 836;
Shepherd v. Stockham, 45 Kan. 244 ;
Pierson v. Conley (Mich., 1893), 55
234
JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EECOEDS.
[§154.
§ 154. Identity of cause of action reqtuired. — There must,
however, be a real and substantial identity between the prior
cause of action and the present. So a judgment rendered in
an action, in order to be a bar in a subsequent suit between
the same parties, must not only relate to the same general sub-
ject-matter but to the same cause of action.' In this connec-
tion it should be said that a party must present to the court all
the grounds on which he expects a judgment. Otherwise
there would be no end to litigation.^ He will not be allowed
to split up a single cause of action which in its nature is in-
divisible— as, for example, a right to recover for a total
breach of an entire contract — and bring a number of suits
thereon.' But where one has two causes of action for which
he seeks redress in a single action, a judgment rendered after
N. W. Rep. 387; Christy v. Spring
(Cal.; 1893), 81 Pac. Rep. 110; Henry
V. Samson (Tex., 1893), 31 S. W. Rep.
69; Fidelity Ins. F. & S. D. Co. v.
Gazzam, 3 Pa. Dist R. 569. The
rules governing the conclusiveness
of judgments are thus summed up by
the court in Packet Co. v. Sickles, 5
Wall. 593: "When the judgment
rendered in the former trial is used
as a technical estoppel, or is relied
upon as conclusive per se, it must ap-
pear by the record of the prior suit
that the particular controversy
sought to be concluded was neces-
sarily tried and determined. That
is, if the record of the former trial
shows that the verdict could not have
been rendered without deciding the
particular matter, it will be con-
sidered as having settled that matter
as between the parties ; and where
the record does not show that the
matter was necessarily and directly
found by the jury, evidence aliunde
consistent with the record may be
received to prove the fact. But even
where it appears extrinsically that
the matter was properly within the
issue in the former suit, if it be not
shown that the verdiot and judgment
necessarily involved its determina-
tion it will not be concluded." See,
also, Dutton v. Woodman, 9 Cush.
325; Eastman v. Cooper, 15 Pick.
276.
1 Lume V. Scott, 44 Minn. 110 ;
Dulin V. Prince, 39 111. App. 309 ; Mc-
Vight V. Bell, 26 W. N. C. 381 ; Cor-
nell V. Donovan, 14 Daly, 395 ; Mer-
scheim v. Mus. M. P. Union, 24
Abb. N. C. 253; Huraason v. Lobe,
76 Tex. 512 ; Parks v. Richardson, 35
Mo. App. 193 ; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co.
V. Slater, 39 111. App. 69; Davis v.
Sexton, 35 111. App. 307 ; Montrose v.
Wanamaker, 57 Hun, 590.
2 Stark V. Starr, 94 IT. S. 485.
SLorrillard v. Clyde, 55 N. Y.
Super. Ct 308 ; 133 N. Y. 41 ; Skeen
V. Springfield Eng. & T. Co., 43 Ma
App. 158 ; Beronio v. So. Pac. R Co.,
80 Cal. 415 ; Bowe v. Minn. Milk Ca,
44 Minn. 460 ; Pilcher v. Ligon (Ky.,
1890), 15 S. W. Rep. 513; Macdougall
V. Knight, 25 Q. B. Div. 1 ; Busch v.
Jones, 94 Mich. 223 ; McCain v. Louis-
ville, etc. Co. (Ky., 1893), 23 S. W.
Rep. 325 ; Parmentery v. State, 105
N. Y. 154; Olrastead v. Bael (Md.,
1893), 35 AtL Rep. 343.
§ 154:.] JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EECOKDS. 235
litigation on one cause only does not preclude a subsequent
action on the other.'
It is a general rule that where two actions are brought be-
tween the same parties for the same cause, the prior judgment
is conclusive as to every point directly involved which was or
might have been litigated,' though if the second suit is be-
tween the same parties for a different cause of action, the
judgment is conclusive only on such questions directly in-
volved as were actually litigated.^
In considering the identity of the questions or causes of
action involved in the two suits, it is immaterial that the sub-
ject of the earlier suit was more extensive than that involved in
the latter if the present cause of action which is in contro-
versy was actually embraced in the judgment or verdict ren-
dered. The law requires a substantial identity in the nature
of the causes of action — not merely a formal, artificial and
technical identity arising solely from the fact that the two
transactions are co-extensive. If on an inspection of the rec-
ord there is any doubt whether the precise question now at
issue was involved or was decided in the prior suit, extrinsic
evidence will be Received to ascertainthis point and effectuate
the prior adjudication.*
iBontin v. Linsley (Wis., 1893), 54 H.), 299; Wolverton v. Baker, 86 CaL
N. W. Rep. 1017. 591 ; Parker v. Straat, 39 Mo. App.
2 Eareshide v. Enterprise Ginning 616.
& Mfg. Co. (La., 1890), 9 S. Eep. 642 ; * " A judgment of a court of corn-
Taylor V. Taylor, 26 Abb. N. C. 860 ; petent jurisdiction upon a question
Nichols v. Murphy, 36 III. App. 205 ; directly involved in one suit is con-
Helfenstein's Estate, 135 Pa. St. 293 ; elusive as to that question in another
Fidelity Ins. & S. D. Co. v. Gazzam, suit betvi^een the same parties. But
3 Pa. Dist. E. 569 ; Pennock v. Ken- it must appear from the face of the
nedy, 158 Pa. St. 179 ; Butler v. Suf. record or be shovyn by extrinsic evi-
Glasg Co., 126 Mass. 512. dence that the precise question was
' Cromwell v. Sac Co., 94 XJ. S. 351 ; raised and determined in the former
Nesbit V. Ind. District of Eiverside, suit If there be any uncertainty —
144 tr. S. 610 ; 12 S. Ct. 746 ; New- for example, if it appears that sev-
berry v. Sheffy (Va., 1892), 15 S. E. eral distinct matters may have been
Rep. 548 ; Robinson v. Parks, 76 Md. litigated, upon one or more of which
118; 24 Atl. Rep. 417; Smeaton v. the judgment may have passed with-
Austin, 82 Wis. 76; 51 N. W. Rep. out indicating which was litigated
1090 ; Gilbert v. Thompson, 9 Cush. and upon which the judgment was
348,350; Potter v. Baker, 19 N. H. rendered — the whole subject-matter
166 ; Lamprey v. Nudd, 9 Foster (N. will be at large and Open to new con-
236 JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIO EECOEDS. [§ 155.
As regards the identity of the party, it may be said that,
in the case of a joint and several contractual liabilit}'', a prior
judgment against all the co-obligors jointly is not admissible
in a subsequent action against one. On the other hand, a
former several judgment cannot be pleaded in bar in an action
afterwards brought against ail jointly.
Any individual by entering into a joint and several contract
agrees, by implication, that he will be liable in a qtiasi-donhle
capacitj^ He enters into two distinct agreements, and gives
his obligee two different causes of action and two different
remedies at law against himself. He cannot, therefore, be
heard to claim, when he is sued in one capacity or by one
remedy, that the matter has been already adjudicated by or
in another.' But where a party has only one cause of action,
either joint or several, though he may have several remedies,
the judgment obtained by the employment of one of them
will be a bar to his employment of the others.^
§ 155. Persons affected by judgments in rem and judg-
ments regulating personal status. — The general rule is that
a judgment is not binding upon persons who are not parties
to it or who are not in privity with either of those who are.'
An exception to this rule is recognized in proceedings in rem^
including under that term all suits in admiralty for the en-
forcement of maritime liens and contracts, and similar suits in
other courts for the violation of revenue laws. Judgments
-in rem are conclusive on all persons upon the assumption that
the publicity attendant upon the seizure of the res and the issue
of the monition is notice to all persons who have any interest
in the property to appear and assert their rights.* But the
tention unless this uncertainty be ^Weill v. Fontanel, 31111. App. 615;
removed by extrinsic evidence show- Taylor v. Taylor, 26 Abb. N. C. 360.
ing the precise point involved and In an action to recover for trespass,
determined." Eussell v. Place, 94 a judgment rendered in a previous
U. S. 608. court to enjoin the trespass is cora-
1 Mason V. Eldred, 6 Wall. 335-241 ; petent evidence. Beach v. Elmira,
United States v. Gushuian, 2 Sumn. 58 Hun, 606.
426, 437-441 ; Sheehy v. Mandeville, 'See ante, §§ 153-155.
6 Cranch, 253, 265. Co?ifra, Mann v. «The Olive Mount, 50 Fed. Rep.
Edwards, 34 111. App. 473 ; Wilson v. 563 ; Oldham v. Stevens (Kan., 1890;,
Casey (Tex., 18931, 22 S. W. Rep. 118; 25 Pac. Rep. 863; Baily v. Sundberg,
Beals V. Judge, 91 Mich. 146. 43 Fed. Rep. 81 ; 49 Fed. Rep. 58a
§§ 156, 157.] JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC BECOEDS. 237
res must have been actually seized to confer jurisdiction,"
though if jurisdiction has once been obtained it will continue
until final judgment, even though the res has been removed.*
§ 156. Criminal judgments.— A judgment in a prosecu-
tion for crime may be shown by the record to prove the fact
that it was rendered. Such a judgment is not admissible as
evidence in a civil suit to prove any fact or circumstance
which was found by the jury in the criminal trial.' Aside
from the rule of evidence that, in a criminal trial, the jury
must be convinced of the guilt of the prisoner beyond a rea-
sonable doubt, while in a civil action they may decide accord-
ing to the weight of evidence,^ the absence of any identity of
the parties in the two transactions precludes the employment
of the criminal judgment as evidence in a subsequent civil
action. On the other hand, a civil judgment is upon like
principles inadmissible in a criminal trial.^ A judgment ren-
dered in a criminal action is competent evidence of the facts
determined in another prosecution of the same person for an-
other or for the same crime."
§ 157. Proof of judgments as facts and their use in prov-
ing ulterior facts distinguislied. — As already explained, a
judicial record is admissible to prove those matters of fact
recited in it only in subsequent proceedings between the same
parties or their representatives in privity But where only
the fact of the rendition of a judgment is to be proved, a
different rule is recognized. The record of a judgment is the
evidence of a public transaction, and it is conclusive evidence
in any subsequent proceedings between any persons whatso-
ever where the point in issue is, was a certain judgment rendered
or not.' So the record of the plaintiff's acquittal or convic-
1 Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. (U. S.) v. Beetle (Mass., 1890), 26 N. E. Rep.
883. 429.
2 The Rio Grande, 23 Wall. (U. S.) «Com. v. Evans, 101 Mass. 25; Den-
348; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall, nis' Case, 110 id. 18.
317. • Bensimer v. Fell (W. Va., 1891), 12
3 Landa V. Obert, 14 S. W. Rep. 297 ; S. E. Rep. 1078. A judgment may
78 Tex. 33 ; Schreiner v. Order of be considered in evidence, though not
Foresters, 35 111. App. 576. formally introduced and read, where
* See ante, §§ 5, 6. counsel admit its existence and wit-
5 Com. V. Horton, 9 Pick. 206 ; Brad- nesses testify to the facts therein
ley V. Bradley, 2 Fairf. 367 ; Bradley without objection by either party.
238 JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EECOEDS. [§ 158.
tion is admissible to show these facts in a subsequent suit
brought by him to recover for false imprisonment though the
parties are not identical.' Again, where the party against
whom the judgment was rendered is suing to be exonerated,^
or when the judgment, as in the case of a certain decree in
chancery, partakes of the nature of a muniment of title,' or
furnishes the source of one's tjtle acquired under a sheriff's
deed,* or the basis of a claim against an official for negligence
in enforcing it,° the existence of the judgment may be shown
res inter alios acta, neither the parties nor the cause of action
being the same.'
§ 158. Talidity and ctFect of foreign judgments. — The
judgment in rem of a foreign court having jurisdiction of the
subject-matter is universally conclusive and binding if the land
or other property, movable or immovable, is located in its juris-
diction.' Its decision, whatever may be its nature, will be held
binding in every country whether the same question is directly
or only incidentally involved.' ^
The English rule is followed in some of the states, and t,he
judgment is binding as to all facts whether directly or inci-
dentally decided. In others the judgment is not conclusive
except as to the property directly involved, and other facts
adjudicated may be relitigated." Of course the rule as thus
stated is to be taken with the limitations that the cause in
rem has been tried and the judgment rendered lonafide^'^ that
the foreign judge was impartial,^' that the decision is consist-
Zieverink v. Kempner (Ohio, 1893), 3 Suran. 600 ; The Mary, 9 Cranch,
34 N. E. Rep. 250. 136 ; Peters v. Warren Ins. Co., 3
1 Barhyt v. Valk, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) Sumn. 389 ; Propellor Commerce, 1
145 ; Garvey v. Wayson, 23 Md. 178. Black, 530 ; Orodson v. Leonard, 4
liKip V. Brigham, 6 Johns. 158; Cranch,433; Averill v.Smith,17Wall
Weld V. Nichols, 17 Pick. 538. 95 : Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 316-
3 Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213. 331, cited in 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 541.
■" Jackson v. Wood, 3 Wend. 27, 34 ; 9 Graham v. Whitely, 3 Dutcher,
Witmer v. Schlatter, 3 Rawle, 359 ; 354 ; Robinson v. Jones, 8 Mass. 536 ;
Fowler v. Savage, 3 Conn. 90, 96. Maley v. Shattuck, 8 Cranch, 488 ;
5 Adams v. Balch. 5 Greenl. 188. Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246.
6Fiscu3 V. Guthrie, 135 Ind. 598. lo White v. Read, 24 N. Y. S. 290;
' See ante, § 155. Bradstreet v. Insurance Co., 3 Sumn.
8 Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. S. 600 ; Magoun v. N. E. Ins. Co., 1 Story,
187 ; Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, 157.
433 ; Bradstreet v, Neptune Ins. Co., " Price v. Dewhurst, 8 Sim, 379.
§ 168.] JUDICIAL AND OTHER PUBLIC EECOEDS. 239
ent with the law of nations, and that all parties having any
interest in rem had notice and an opportunity to appear and
to be heard personally or by a proper representative.'
In regard to that class of judgments which are analogous
to judgments, *ra rem in that they are binding upon all persons
within the jurisdiction, that is to say, judgments or decrees
fixing the personal status of an individual, it has been held
that where a judgment of this sort has been rendered in a
foreign court or in the court of one state of the United States,
it ought to be binding, so far as the person is concerned, in
every country and in all the states of the Union.
So far as guardians, executors, administrators and others
occupying similar positions are concerned, the decree of the
court appointing them has in the United States no extraterri-
torial efficacy, and these quasi-^dnoiaxies are regarded as
purely local matters. For this reasona judgment appointing
a person an executor, administrator, guardian or trustee in one
state is not evidence in the courts of another to show that he
possesses any power as such over property in the latter state. '^
The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction confirm,
ing or annulling a marriage which had been contracted within
its jurisdiction by residents or non-residents, or which had
been contracted outside of its jurisdiction by persons who
were at the time of the marriage or of the suit domiciled
within its jurisdiction, is valid everywhere. The same rule is
applied to a valid foreign decree granting a divorce in a suit
conducted ionafide by persons actually domiciled in the juris-
diction of the court.'
The effect as evidence of foreign judgments in personam
has been much discussed from early times by the authorities
and in the" decided cases. In spite of the contrariety of the
cases, it may be safely said, in the first place, that a foreign
judgment regular on its face, rendered in an action in i^er-
iGelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 3 James v. James, 81 Tex. 373;
"Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, 433. Glaude v. Post, 8 S. "Rep. 884; 43 La.
2 Kraft V. "Wickey, 4 Cr. & J. 333; Ann. 861 ; Davis v. Davis, 22 N. Y. S.
Dixon V. Ramsay, 3 Cranch, 819 ; In 191; 3Miso.R549;Haramondv.Hara-
re Mintzer's Estate, 3 Pa. Dist. R. 584 ; mond (Ga., 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 2C5.
In re Johnson (Iowa, 1893), 54 N. W.
Rep. 69.
240 JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PtJBLIO EEC0ED3. [§ 158.
sonam in a foreign court, is conclusive evidence between the
parties or tiieir privies Of all facts which are directly or in-
directly involved. This proposition, it will be seen, leaves
the foreign judgment to be impeached and set aside if upon
the face of the record of the foreign court its decision ap-
pears to be grossly repugnant to natural justice,' or was ob-
tained by fraud, or if it appears that the court had no juris-
diction,^ or misapprehended or refused to recognize the law of
the country in which the subject-matter is situated.' Thus, if
a French court, construing a contract made in England, decides
a question of English law which is an essential element in the
ultimate judgment rendered, the judgment itself will be in-
valid as evidence in an English court if the foreign court mis-
apprehends the true import of the English rule of law.* If
the foreign court has no jurisdiction, then its judgment is of
course invalid.^
In some proceedings in personam the decree of the foreign
court is effectual to transfer the title of the property not only
as against the parties but against all persons, and this conclu-
sively. Such proceeding are analogous to proceedings in rem,
and a party who accepts the express or implied permission or
invitation to intervene and submits his claim to the court will
not be permitted to have the judgment re-opened in another
court on the plea that he only intervened to save his prop-
erty from forfeiture.^
1 Boston I. R Oo. v. Hoit, 14 Vt. 93. Fogo, 6 Jur. 403 ; WoodruflE v. Tay-
2Goulding v. Hoyt, 34 N. H. 143. lor, 20 Vt 65. In Holmes v. Gratz
3 Scott V. Pilkington, SB. & S. 11; (U. S. C. C, 1892), 50 Fed. Eep. 869,
8 Jur. 557 ; Cri.spin v. Daglioni, 9 id. the court in refusing to allow defend-
653 ; Simpson v. Fogo, 9 id. 403 ; ant to plead a foreign judgment as a
Bank of Australasia v. Nias, 16 Q. B. bar in a suit for an injunction held
717 ; Ricardo v. Garcias, 13 01. & Fin. that foreign adjudications as re-
368 ; Dunstan v. Higgins, 63 Hun, spects torts are not conclusive, and
631, cited in 1 Greenl. on Evid, § 546. that, as granting an injunction de-
* Novelli V. Rossi, 3 B. & Aid. 757. pends largely upon circumstances
sVanquelin v. Bouard, 9 L. T. which differ in each case, neither
■(N. S.) 582. Of. Wood v. Watkinson, public policy nor international com-
17 Conn. 500. ity requires that the right to the pro-
^ De Casse Brissac v, Rathbone, 6 tection of a court of equity against
H. & Nor. 301 ; Imrie v. Castrique, fraud should depend on the law of a
■8 C. B. (N. S.) 406 ; Frayes v. Worms, foreign tribunal.
10 C. B. (N. S.) 149; Simpson v.
159.]
JUDICIAL AND OTHEK PUBLIC EEC0KD3.
241
§ 159. JiKlgments of sister states.— By virtue of the con-
stitutional provision that full faith and credit shall be given to
the judicial proceedings of each state in the courts of every
.other state, a judgment rendered in any state or territory will,
when duly authenticated, have exactly the same effect and
operation as a domestic judgment.' Still it is competent for
the court, in such a case, to inquire whether the judgment is
tainted with fraud or whether the court. had jurisdiction of
the subject-matter or of the parties.^ So a court of one state
may inquire whether a federal court situated in another state
had jurisdiction to render a judgment offered as evidence in
its courts;' and in New York it has been held that the va-
lidity of a judgment rendered in another state may be attacked
upon the sole ground that the cause of action was based on a
contract without consideration and obtained under duress,'' or
that the judgment has been allowed to become dormant in the
other state.' On the other hand, the validity of a judgment'
of another state cannot be impeached by showing that the
cause of action was barred by the statute of limitation,^ or
that the parties were not legally served.''
, 1 Bright V. Smitten, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. E.
647 ; Fitzsimons v. Johnson, 90 Tenn.
416 (probate court); Caughran v.
Oilman, 81 Iowa, 442; 46 N. W. Rep.
1005 ; Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245 ;
9 S. Rep. 265 ; Hall v. McKay, 78 Tex.
248 ; Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U. S.
87; Chicago & A. B. Co. v. Anglo-
American Packing Co., 46 Fed. Rep.
584; McGarvej' v. Darnall, 134 111.
367 ; 35 N. E. Rep. 1005 ; Kingman v.
Paulsen, 126 Ind. 507; Bowersox v.
Gitt, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 81 ; Sannis v.
Wightman (Fla., 1898), 18 S. Rep.
536; Hammond v. Hammond (Ga.,
1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 365. See, also,
ante, § 148.
2 Taylor v. Bryden, 8 Johns. 173;
First Nat. Bank v. Cunningham, 48
Fed. Rep. 515 ; Teel v. Yost, 128 N. Y.
387 ; Renier v. Hurlburt (Wis., 1892),
50 N. W. Rep. 783 ; Henry v. Allen,
83 Tex. 35; Rand v. Hansen, 154
16
Mass. 87 ; 28 N. E. Rep. 6 ; Caughran
V. Gilman, 81 Iowa, 442; 46 N. "W.
Rep. 1005; Bogan v. Hamilton, 90
Ala. 54; New York L. Ins. Co. v.
Aitkin, 125 N. Y. 560; Huntington v.
Attrill, 146 U. S. 657; Morgan v.
Morgan, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 315.
SHovey v. Elliott. 21 N. Y. S. 108;
Southern Ins. Co. v. Wolverton Hd.
Co. (Tex., 1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 615. -
^Trebilcox v. McAlpine, 63 Hun,
317. But c/. contra, Ambler v.
Whipple, 139 111. 311 ; 38 N. E. Rep.
841.
6 Chapman v. Chapman, 48 Kan.
636 ; 29 Pac. Rep. 1074
6 Fitzsimons v. Johnson, 90 Tenn.
416; Reed v. Chilson, 61 Hun, 633.
7 Hall V. McKay, 78 Tex. 348;
Semple v. Glenn, 9 S. Rep. 265 ; 91
Ala. 245. But cf. N. Y. L. Ins. Co. v
Aitkin, 135 N. Y. 660; Hoffman v.
Newell, 20 N. Y. S. 433; 31 id. 912.
242 JUDICIAL AND OTHEE PUBLIC EECOIJDS. [§ 160.
§ 160. Judgment in bar need not be pleaded. — An estoppel
in pais or by deed should be specially pleaded in order to be
admissible and conclusive as evidence, though where there is
no opportunity to plead it it may be proved under the general
denial.' A former judgment, when specially pleaded in bar,
will operate as an estoppel in law and be binding alike on
court and jury. But it has been considered doubtful whether
a judgment not pleaded as an estoppel but given in evidence
rander a general denial or under the general issue was binding
on the jury. The weight of the decisions, however, supports
the proposition that if a former judgment is relied upon and
is given in evidence as determining the whole question in-
volved in the pending action, it need not be pleaded but is
conclusive as an estoppel, and so binding as a matter of law
upon the jury.^
1 Outram v. Morewood, 5 East, 346 ; Harvey, 3 H. & Mun. 55 ; Shafer t.
Adams v. Barnes, 17 Mass. 365 ; Dows Stonebraker, 4 G. & J. 345 ; Betts
v. MoMiohael, 6 Paige, 139 ; Cham- v. Starr, 5 Conn. 550, 553 ; King v.
berlain v. Carlisle, 36 N. H. 540 ; Chase, 15 N. H. 9 ; Lawrence v. Hunt,
Meiss V. Gill, 44 Ohio St. 358. 10 Wend. 83, 84 ; 1 Greenl. on Evid.,
^Krekeler v. Eitter, 63 N. Y. 872; § 531. Contra, JosepH v. Mady
Marsh v. Pier, 4 Rawle, 288, 289; Clothing Co. (Mont, 1893), 33 Pac.
Gray v. Pingry, 17 Vt. 419; Cist v. Eep.lO. C/. Dunklee v. Goodenough
Ziegler, 16 S. & E. 283 ; Preston v. (Vt., 1893), 26 Atl. Eep. 988.
CHAPTER XIV.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.
165. Foundation of the doctrine.
166. Husband and wife, when com-
petent witnesses.
167. Statutoi-y legislation ^Confi-
dential communications.
168. Confidential communications
between husband and wife.
169. Communications to attorneys.
170. Character and time of the
com municatioDs.
171. Attorney employed by both
parties.
i 173. Permanent character of the
privilege — Its waiver.
173. Privileges as to documents.
174. What communications are
within the privilege.
175. Privilege of police — Judicial
and executive ofiScials.
176. Privilege as relating to juroi-s.
177. Confidential communications
to clergymen.
178. Communications to^physi-
§ 165. Foundation of the doctrine. — Public policy, the
welfare of the whole community, and indeed the best inter-
ests of the litigant parties themselves, demand that certain
evidence, or rather the evidence of certain witnesses, shall be
absolutely inadmissible, because any advantage which might
be gained in the particular case in ascertaining the truth
would be more than counterbalanced by the injury to society
as a whole. This restriction upon the capacity of certain
classes of witnesses as regards the evidence which they will
be permitted to give is not based upon any peculiar respect
which the law has for their calling or character. Its design
is to advance the pure and unembarrassed administration of
law, subserve justice and to protect the innocent while pun-
ishing the guilty.'
1 "The principle of the rule which
applies to attorneys and counsel is
that so numerous and complex are
the laws by which the rights and du-
ties of citizens are governed, so im-
portant is it they should be permitted
to avail themselves of the superior
skill and learning of those who are
sanctioned by the law as its minis-
ters and exponents, both in ascertain-
ing their rights in the country and
maintaining them most safely in
courts, without publishing those facts
which they have a right to keep se-
cret, but which must be disclosed to
a legal adviser and advocate to ena-
ble him successfully to perform the
duties of his office, that the law has
244
PEIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.
[§ 166.
§ 166. Huslband and wife, when competent witnesses. — A
husbaiid or wife was not at common law (with a few excep-
tions) a competent witness for or against each other in any
action to which the other was a party or had any pecuniary
interest.' The absolute prohibition thus placed upon the hus-
band and wife was largely the logical result of the legal
identity of the parties to the marriage. The rule that the
party was not a competent witness for or against himself re-
quired the exclusion of the testimony of another person who
was simply the alter ego of the party and equally concerned
in the suit.^ It was considered also that to permit a husband
or wife to testify for the other would put a premium on per-
jury, while, if either were to be recognized as a corapeteiit
witness against the other, the harmony between them and
the unbounded confidence properly accompanying the mar-
riage relation v/ould be imperiled.'^
So far as the rule was intended to protect confidential com-
munications between husband and wife, it was analogous to
the rule which at common law affixed a privileged character
considered it the wisest policy to en-
courage and sustain the coufidenoe
by requiring tliat on such facts the
mouth of the attorney should be
forever closed." Chief Justice Shaw,
in Hatton v. Robinson, 14 Pick. 433.
1 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 334 ; Bank v.
Mandeville, 1 Ci'anch, 575 ; Gilleland
V. Martin, 3 McLean, 490 ; Farrell v.
Lad well, 81 Wis. 183; Pryor v. Eo-
burn, 16 Ark. 671 ; Moore v. MoKee,
13 Miss. 238; Wilson v. Sheppard, 38
Ala. 633; Dawley v. Ayers, 38 Cal.
108; Manchester v. Manchester, 34
Vt. 649; Kemp v. Donhan, 5 Har.
(Del.) 417 ; Cameron v. Fay, 55 Tex.
38 ; Waddams v. Humphreys, 23 111.
661 ; Karney v. Paisley, 13 Iowa, 89;
Smead v. Williamson, 16 B. Mon.
(Ky.)493; Gee v. Scott, 48, Tex. 510;
Kyle V. Frost, 39 Ind. 398; Keaton
V. McGivier, 34 Ga. 217; TuUy v.
Alexander, 11 La. Ann. 638; State v.
Armstrong, 4 Minn. 335 ; Tomlinson
V. iynch, 33 Mo. 160 ; Kelly v. Proc-
tor, 41 N. H. 139; Rice V. Keith, 63
N. C. 319 ; Den v. Johnson, 18 N. J.
L. 87; Birdv. Husten, 10 Ohio St
418; Donnelly V. Smith, 7 R. L 13;
Gross V. Reddy, 45 Pa. St. 406 ; Foot-
man V. Prendergass, 2 Strob. Eq.
(S. C.) 317.
2 Turner v. State, 50 Miss. 351, 354.
s Lucas V. Brooks. 18 Wall. (U. S.)
436, 453; In re Alcock, 13 Eng. L. &
Eq. 354, 355 : Stapleton v. Crofts, 18
Ad. & E. 307, 369 ; TuUy v. Alexan-
der, 11 La. Ann. 638; Mitchinson v.
Cross, 58 111. 366, 369; In re Dwelly,
46 Me. 477, 480; Blake v. Graves, 18
Iowa, 313, 317 ; Bradford v. Williams,
3 Md. Ch. 1 ; Turner v. State, 50 Miss.
351 ; Den v. Johnson, 18 N. J. L. 87,
98 ; Marsh v. Potter, 30 Barb. (N. Y.)
506 ; Gibson v. Com., 87 Pa. St. 253 ;
State V. Workman, 15 S. C. 540, 546;
Cram v. Cram, 33 Vt. 15, 40 ; Dun-
lap V. Hearn, 37 Miss. 471, 474; Bow-
man V. Patrick, 32 Fed. Rep. 368.
§ 107.] PEIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. 245
to the communications between client and attorney, and
which, by statute, now regulates the relation of priest and
penitent or physician and patient. Thus it is said that the
incompetency of the husband- or wife to testify for or against
the other in a criminal prosecution arose, not from any iden-
tity of interest, but solely from principles of public policy
growing out of respect for the confidential nature of the
marital relation.^ When, therefore, the interest of justice de-
manded that the mouth of the husband or wife should be
opened, as in prosecutions of eitlier for a crime committed on
the other, an exception was recognized ^ from the necessity of
the case, and the husband or wife was competent.'
A woman against whose husband an indictment has been
found may testify for the state on the trial of another person
for the crime;'' and the same rule has been applied where the
husband was tried jointly with another, though it is the duty
of the jury to consider her testimony only so far as it applies
to the other defendant.*
§ 167. Statutory legislation — Confidential commnnica-
tions.— The competency of a wife or husband as a witness
iTurpin v. State, 55 Md. 477; Stein 3 Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet 321 ; 1
T. Bowman, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 233; Tur-' Bl. Com. 413; Bentley v. Coolse, 3
ner V. State, 50 Miss. 351 ; In re Ran- Doug. (Eng.) 432; Whipp v. State,
dal), 5 City Hall Rec. 141,. 153 ; 34 Ohio St. 87, 89 ; State v. Neil, 6
United States v. Jones, 33 Fed. Rep. Ala. 685 ; State v. Parrott, 79 N. G,
569; State v. Wright, 41 La. Ann. 615; People v. Chegaray, 18 Wend,
600; Hussey v. State, 87 Ala. 131; (N. y.)642; Goodwin v. State, 60 Ga.
Ex parte Hendricksou (Utah, 1889), 509; State v. Bennett, 31 Iowa, 24;
31 Pao. Rep. 396 ; Johnson v. State, State v. Dyer, 59 Me. 503 ; Turner v.
27 Tex. App. 135^ State v. Adams, 40 State, 50 Miss. 351, 354. A wife's
La. Ann. 213. dying declarations are admissible on
2Brainlette v. State, 31 Tex. App. a trial of her husband for her mur-
611; 2 S. W. Rep. 875; People v. der. State v. Belcher, 13 S. C. 459
Sebring, 66 Mich. 705 ; 33 N. W. Rep. Rex v. Woodcock, 2 Leach, 563
808. In a trial of the husband for People v. Green, 1 Denio (N. Y.), 614
bigamy, his letters to his lawful wife People v. Murphy, 45 Cal. 143.
are inadmissible (State v. Ulrich, 110 < State v. Rainsbarger, 71 Iowa<
Mo. 350; Com. v. Caponi, 155 Mass. 746; 31 N. W. Rep. 865; -State v.
534; Bassett v. United States, 137 Wright, 41 La. Ann. 600.
U. S. 496), though it is held elsewhere ^ state v. Adams, 40 La. Ann. 313 ;
that she is herself competent as a 3 S. Rep. 733.
witness. United States v. Cutler, 19
Pac. Rep. 145 ; 5 Utah, 608.
2i6 PItlVILEGED COMMtTNICATIONS. [§ 167.
for or against the other is to a large degree, if not altogether,
regulated by statutes in the United States. These differ
somewhat in details and should be consulted in every instance
where this question arises. The general effect of this legisla-
tion has been to render the husband or wife competent as a
witness for or against the other by removing any disqualifica-
tion that either may have been under on account of the
common-law merger of the legal personality of the wife into
that of the husband because of the incompetenc}^ of a party
to be a witness.' In civil cases, therefore, a husband or wife
is a competent witness for or against the other to the same
extent and with the same effect as any other person, with the
exception (and this exception is recognized in all the states
which have legislated upon this subject) that neither can
be permitted to disclose confidential communications which
passed between them during coverture. But statutes merely
intended to render interested persons competent as witnesses
do not affect the competency of husband and wife, as their
incompetency is founded on other grounds than interest.^
The common-law incompetency of the husband or wife as
a witness in the prosecution of either for a crime committed
against a third party is confirmed by statute in man}^ states; '
and where the statute in general terms declares that husbands
and wives are competent and. compellable to give evidence,
it has been held to apply only to civil suits and never to crim^
inal proceedings.* The credibility of a husband or wife who
•Collins V. Mack, 31 Ark. 684; v. State (Tex., 1889), 11 S. W. Rep.
Watkina v. Turner, 34 Ark. 668; 667; Lowther v. State, 4 Ohio Cir.
Spitz's Estate, 56 Conn. 185 ; Beit- Ct. R. 1 522. This privilege may be
man v. Hopkins, 109 Ind. 178; Park- claimed by the defendant instead of
hurst V. Berdell, 110 N. Y. 386; by the witness. People v. Wood, 136
Warren v. Press Pub. Co., 183 id. N. Y. 249 ; 27 N. E. Rep. 362.
181; Nilan v. Kalish (Neb., 1893), 55 4 Turpin v. State, 55 Md. 463, 478;
N. W. Rep. 295; Brigga v. Briggs Wilke v. People, 53 N. Y. 535 ; Steen
(R I., 1893), 36 Atl. Rep. 198; Beale v. State, 20 Ohio St. 333. Of. People
V. Brown, 6 Mackey, 574. v. Murphy, 45 Cal. 143 ; Miner v. Peo-
2Turpin v. State, 55 Md. 462, 477. pie, 58 111. App. 59; State v. Sloan,
3 State V. McCord, S.Kan. 161; 55 Iowa, 217. The statutory pro-
United States V. Bassett, 5 Utah, 131 ; visions of the several states regulat-
13 Pac. Rep. 237 ; Meriwether v. State, ing the competency of a husband and
81 Ala. 74; 1 S. Rep. 500; Stickney wife as witnesses for or against each
V. Stickney, 131 U. S. 337 ; Johnson other are cited, and the subject of
§ 168.]
PEIVILEGED COMlftJNIOATIOSrS.
247
has been made competent to testify for or against the other
is to be tested precisely by the same rules as any other wit-
ness.'
§ 168. Confidential communication between linsband and
wife. — Where a statute expressly enacts that a husband or
wife is not compellahle to divulge their communications, either
may be permitted with the consent of the other to make a
voluntary statement,^ though the contrar}' is the rule where
they are declared incompetent to testify.^ Where the communi-
cation is not confidential, and this will be presumed where it
is made to a third person by the wife or husband in the other's
presence,* or where a third person is present, it will not be
privileged,' and the third party may testify to what he has
heard, but sometimes it has been held that a communication
need not be expressly confidential ; " as, for example, where
confidential communication between
them is very thoi-ouglily discussed
by the editors of the fourteenth
edition of Greenleaf on Evidence in
a note to section 334 in , volume 1.
The list here appended is condensed
from that note. The following stat-
utes may be consulted: Arkansas
Code, g 2S59, cl. 4; California Code,
§ 1881 ; Grim. Code, S 1323 ; Colorado
Gen. Laws, § 3649; Connecticut
Statutes, § 1097; Florida Laws, ch.
101 ; § 23, Act 1891 ; § 4039 ; Georgia
Code, § 3854; Illinois E. S., ch. 51,
§ 5 ; Indiana R. S., g 501 ; Iowa Code,
g§ 3641, 3643; Kansas Gen. Stat.,
§ 5380 ; Maine R. S., ch. 134, § 19, ch.
83, § 93 ; Maryland Gen. Laws, art
35, § 1 ; Massachusetts Pub. Stat., ch.
169, §18; Minnesota Statutes, §5094;
Mississippi Rev. Code, § 1601 ; Mis-
souri R S., § 8923; Montana Code
Civ. Pro., g 649 ; Nebraska Code Oiv.
Pro. 328; Nevada Gen. Stat., § 3403;
New Jersey Rev., vol. 1, p. 378, § 5 ;
New York Code Civ. Pro.. § 828;
OhioR. S., g 5241, -ch. 3; Pennsyl-
vania Laws 1887, ch. 89, g 2, c!. b ;
Texas R. S., art 2347; Vermont R.
S., § 1005; Virginia Rev. Civ. Code,
8281 ; West Virginia Code, ch. ISO,
g 22 ; Wisconsin Annot., § 7073.
' State V. Collins, 30 Iowa, 85 ;
State v. Guyer, 6 id. 263; State v.
Bernard, 45 id. 234.
^ South wick V. Southwick, B
Sweeny, 334 ; Stickney v. Stickney,
131 U. S. 237.
'Baldwin v. Parker, 99 Mass. 79;
Brown v. Wood, 121 id. 137; Jacobs
V. Hesler, 113 id. 157 ; Head v. Thomp-
son, 77 Iowa, 263 ; Smith v. Tiirley,
33 W. Va. 14: Com. v. Cleary, 152
Mass. 491.
1 Griffin v. Smith, 45 lud. 866;
Mainard v. Beider, 2 Ind. App. 115;
28 N. E. Rep. 196.
(■Day V. Gidjum, 131 Mass. 31;
Com. V. Griffin, 110 Mass. 181 ; State
V. Carter, 35 Vt 378; Howard v.
Brewer, 37 Ohio St 403; People v.
Lewis, 62 Hun, 622 ; Lyon v. Prouty,
154 Mass. '488; Buckman's Will, ti4
Vt313.
6 Dexter v. Booth, 2 Allen (Mass.),
559; Raynes v. Bennett 114 Masii.
425; Com. v. Haynes, 145 id. 298;
Lepla V. Minn. Tribune Co, 35 Minn.
311 ; Norris v. Stewart, 105 N. C. 455.
248 PEiviLEGED •communications. [§ 168.
the statute in terms refers to all com,municaiions made during
marriage.'
A conversation between husband and wife is no less con-
fidential and private because children were present who took
no part in it.- The fact that husband and wife sue or are sued
jointly does not remove the privilege as respects- confiden-
tial communications,' nor ■will the husband or wife be permit-
ted to testify to any communications made while the marriage
relation existed after its dissolution, whether by annulment,
divorce or death.* But either after the death of the other may
now testify to an}'- facts which he or she learned from other
sources and not by reason of the marital relation, even though
relative to a transaction of the decedent.^ If, however, the
evidence of the other party to the suit is inadmissible because
referring to a transaction with a decedent, the testimony of a
wife is also inadmissible.'
It is sometimes provided by statute that, in the trial of any
allegation founded upon adultery, neither husband nor wife
shall be competent to testify against the other except to
prove the fact of marriage or to disprove the adultery.' So
in an action to recover for criminal conversation, neither hus-
band nor wife can testify for the other,* though either being
1 Low's Estate, Myrick's Prob. (Cal.) Grose v. Eutledge, 81 111. 266 ; Barnes
143 ; Campbell v. Chase, 13 R. I. 333 ; v. Camack, 1 Barb. 393 ; Cook v.
Bird V. Hueston, 10 Ohio St 418; Grange, 18 Ohio, 536 ; Brook v. Brock,
Westerraan v. Westerinan, 35 id. 500; 116 Pa. St. 113. When either party-
King V. King, 43 Mo. App. 454. is deceased his written communica-
- Jacobs V. Hesler, 113 Mass. 157. tion to the other cannot be used by a
So business communications are priv- third person in a suit against the sur-
ileged. Com. v. Hayes (Mass., 1887), vivor. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 15 S. W.
14 N. E, Eep. 151 ; Mitchell v. Mitch- Rep. 705 ; 80 Tex. 101.
ell, 15 S. W. Eep. 705. 5 Coffin v. Jones, 13 Pick. 445 ; Wells
3 Buck V. Ashbrook, 51 Mo. 539 ; v. Tucker, 3 Binn. 366 ; Williams v.
Tingley v. Conzill, 48 id. 291. Baldvrin, 7 Vt 506 ; Saunders v. Hen-
* Hitchcock V. Moore, 70 Mich. 113 ; drix, 5 Ala. 234 ; Galbraith v. McLain,
Stanley v. Montgomery, 103 Ind. 103 ; 84 111. 379 ; Romans v. Hay, 12 Iowa,
Stein V. Bowman, 13 Pick. 209, 233 ; 370, cited in 1 Greenl. on Evid., § 337.
French v. Ware (Vt, 1893), 36 Atl. « Harriman v. Sampson, 33 111. App.
Eep. 1096 : Coffin v. Jones, 13 Pick. 161 ; Trileavan v. Dixon, 119 111. 551 ;
441 ; Robin v. King, 2 Leigh, 143 ; Barry v. Stevens, 69 Me. 390.
Bigelow V. Sickles, 75 Wis. 538 ; Pat- ' Michigan Annot Stat, § 7543 ;
ten V. Wilson, 3 Lea (Tenn.), 101 ; Es- Code N. C. 588 ; R. S. Ind. 1881, § 501.
tate of Lord, Myrick's Prob. (Cal.) 143; » Cross v. Cross, 55 Mich. 280; De
State V. Jolly, 3 Dev. & Bat 110; Meli v. De Meli, 120 N. Y. 493.
§ 169.] PEITILEGBD COMMUNICATIONS. 219
a party may testify in his or her own behalf.^ So a married
woman has been permitted to testify in her own behalf to the
fact of the non-access of her husband,- or that her husband
had made certain representations to her upon the strength of
which she had conveyed property to him,^ or that her hus-
band had been intoxicated in her presence/ or had communi-
cated to her a venereal disease.'
§169. Commimications to attorneys. — At common law
an attorney cannot be compelled or allowed to disclose com-
munications made by his client to him or his advice given in
return in the course of his employment as an attorney.® In
nearly all the states this rule has been confirmed by statute,
and it is sometimes provided that the privilege may be waived
by the client.
A client may waive the privilege by conduct and by impli-
cation as well as by express declaration.' Thus, if he request
his attorney to act as a subscribing witness to his will he
waives his privilege to that extent, and the attorney is then
compellable to testify to the same facts as other subscribing
witnesses.' Such a request is tantamount to a declaration
that he wishes to release the attorney from the professional
'Smith y. Brien, 6 N. Y. S. 174. 138 U. a 353. In Pearse v. Pearse, 1
2 state V. McDowell (N. C), 7 S. E. Do Gex & Sm. 28, 29, the court says :
Rep. 785. "Truth, like all other things, may
3 Spitz's Appeal, 56 Conn. 184; 14 have loved unwisely; may be puv-
Atl. Rep. 776. sued too keenly ; may cost too mucli ;
< Stanley v. Stanley (Ind., 1888), 13 and surely the meanness and the rais-
N. E. Rep. S61. chief of prying into a man's confi-
5Polson V. State (Ind., 1893), 35 N. dential consultation with his legal
E. Rep. 907. adviser, the general evil of infusing
6 Carter v. West (Ky., 1893), 19 ^S. reserve, dissimulation, meanness, sus-
W. Rep. 592 ; Aultman v. Ritter, 81 picion and fear into those communi-
Wis. 395; 51 N. W. Rep. 569: Koontz cations which must take place, and
v. Owens, 109 Mo. 1 ; 18 S. W. Rep. which, unless in a condition of per-
938 ; Wadd v. Hazleton, 63 Hun, 603 ; feet security, must take place use-
Swain V. Humphreys, 43 111. App. lessly or worse, are too great a price
370; Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y. for truth itself."
320; In re Coleman, 11 N. Y. 330; 'Willis v. West, 60 Ga. 618.
In re McCarthy, 65 Hun, 634; Chirac '«In re Lumb'a Will, 21 Civ. Pro.
T. Reinecker, 11 Wheat. 393 ; Fos- 334 ; Rousseau v. Blen, 31 N. Y. 177 :
ter V. Hall, 13 Pick. 89 ; Mathews v. In re Pitts (Wis., 1893), 55 N. W. Rep.
Hoagland (N. J., 1890), 31 Atl. Rep. 149 ; MoMaster's Appeal, 55 id. 149 ;
1054; Alexander v. United States, In re Coleman, 111 N. Y. 230.
250 PKIVILEGED COMMDSriCATIONS. [§ 169.
privilege, and is equivalent to calling upon him to take the
witness stand in his behalf.'
The communication, to be privileged, must have been made
to one who was actually occupying the position of legal ad-
viser; but where a communication is raadfe to an attorney
who has been requested to act, it will be privileged though
he subsequently refuses to do so.^ The rule does not require
any regular retainer, or any particular form of application
or payment of a fee,' provided the attorney is consulted with
the actual intention of obtaining his professional services.*
A communication made to or advice received from the
agent of the attorney is no less privileged than where the
client communicates with the attorney directly. Thus, a
clerk,^ interpreter," or other agent 'of the attorney will not
be allowed to testify to communications made to him in a
professional capacity by a client of his employer. But a third
person present at a consultation between attorney and client,
and who is not the medium of communication, may testify to
what was said ; ^ and so generally any person who has been
consulted either in a private or professional capacity in regard
to any transaction may be compelled to testify if, at that time
and in reference to that particular matter, he did not occupy
the position of an attorney at law.'
•McKinney v. Grand St. etc. R. R. 'Parkins v. Hawkshaw, 3 Stark.
Co., 104 N.Y. 353. 1339; Steele v. Stuart, 1 Phil. Cli.
•■iPeek V. Boone (Ga., 1893), 17 S. 471; Fanner v. London & S. E. Ry.
W. Rep. 66 ; Sargent v,/Hampden, 38 Co., L. R 7 Q. B. 767.
Me. 581 ; McClellan v. Longfellow, » Greer v. Gi'eer, 58 Hun, 251 ; Ty-
33 id. 594. ler v. Hall, 106 Mo. 813; Goddard v.
3 1 Greenl. Evid., § 241. Cf. In re Gardner, 28 Conn. 173; Hoy v. Mor-
Monros's Will, 30 N. Y. S. 82 ; 3 Con. ris, 13 Gray, 519.
Sur. 395. 3 In re Monroe's Will, 20 N. Y. S.
♦Sargent V. Hampden, s)xpra. 183; Matthews' Estate, 4 Am. Law
6 Sibley V. Waffle, 16 N. Y. 180 ; Jour. 356 (conveyancer) ; Schubkagel
Jackson v. French, 3 Wend. 837; v. Dierstein, 131 Pa. St. 53; Mc-
Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 68; Taylor v. Laughlin v. Gilmore, 1 111. App. 563;
Forster, 3 C. P. 195 ; Bowman v. Nor- Brunger v. Smith, 49 Fed. Rep. 134;
ton, 5 C. & P. 177; Jardine v. Sheri- Holman v. Kimball, 23 Vt 555; De
dan, 3 C. & K. 24 ; Landsberger v. Wolf v. Strader, 26 111. 225 ; Coon
Gorham, 5 Cal. 450. v. Swan. 30 Vt. ,6; Borum v. Fonts,
« Parker v. Carter, 4 Munf. 373; 15Ind. 50; Sample- v. Frost, 10 Iowa,
Andrews v. Solomon, 1 Pet C. C. 266. So communications to one's
856. confidential clerk or banker (Mo-
§ 170.] PEIVILEGBD COMMUNICATIONS. 251
§ 170. Character and time of the coramnriications. — In
all classes of privileged communications claimed to be con-
fidential certain elements must be present. It is only neces-
sary to call attention to the fact that, as the communication
• must have been made during the existence of the confidential
relation, anything said before or after is not within the rule.
So the communication must have been made to the attorney,
doctor or priest, not only during the existence of the connec-
tion but while he was acting in a professional capacity, and
must have had relation to his professional employment.' So
an attorney will be allowed to divulge the name of a person
who retained him^ and the date when he received a certain
instrument ; ^ that he drew a deed * for his client or paid money
to his client'' or to a third person on his client's account.
So it has besn held that whenever an attorney, though acting
as such, obtains knowledge of any fact, not by reason of his pro-
fessional character, but by his power of observation as a man
or by means which any man in a like situation would employ,
the information is not privileged."
Manus v. Freeman, 3 Pa. Dist. R. Gower v. Emery, 6 Shepl. 79; Chirac
144) or steward are never privileged, v. Reinecker, 11 Wlieat. 280.
1 Green!. Evid., § 248, citing Hof- 3 Wheatley v. Williams. 1 M. &W.
man v. Smith, 1 Cainea, 157 ; Vallaint 533. But cf. contra. Ex parte Trustee,
V. Dodemead, 2 Atk. 524. Where a 9 Morrell's Bank. Gas. IIC.
person, though not admitted to the * Barry v. Coville, 7 N. Y. S. 36
bar, has been accustomed for years Rundle v. Foster, 8 Tenn. Ch. 658
to practice before justices of the Robson v. Kemp, 4 Esp. 235.
peace, confidential statements made ^ chapman v. Peebles, 84 Ala. 283
to him by an accused are under the 4 S. Rep. 273.
rule. Benedict v. State, 11 N. E. 6 Wadd v. Hazelton, 62 Hun, 603
Rep. 135; 44 Ohio, 679. But the Swaine v. Humphreys, 42 111. App.
mere presence of a third person will 370 ; Harris, v. Dougherty, 74 Tex. 1
not make the attorney a competent 11 S. W. Rep. 921 ; Brennan v. Hall,
witness. Blount V. Kempton, 155 14 N. Y. S. 864; Sheldon v.Sheldon
MiiS. 378. 58 Hun, 601; In re Smith, 61 Hun
'Grant v. Hughes, 96 N. 0. 177; 3 101 ; Weaver's Estate, 9 Pa, Co. Ct. R
S. E. Rep. 389 ; Piano Mfg. Co. v. 516 ; Theisen v. Dayton, 82 Iowa, 74
Frawley, 68 Wis. 577 ; 33 N. W. Rep. 47 N. W. Rep. 891. As a corporation
768; Caldwell v. Davis, 10 Colo. 481; acts only by agent, a confidential com-
15 Pac. Rep. 696 ; Sharon v. Sharon, munication by the latter to the at-
79 Cal. 633; Skellie v. James, 81 Ga. torney of the corporation is within
419 ; Rogers v. Moore, 88 id. 88. the rule (Fire Ass'n v. Fleming (Ga.,
2 Brown v. Payson, 6 N. H. 443; 1888), 3 & E. Rep. 420), though per-
252 PEIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. [§§ 171, 172.
§ 171. Attorney employed by both parties.— When an at-
torney is engaged by several parties to act or to advise in a
transaction in wliich all are interested, communications made
to him by any of them are not within the rule. He may be
called to testify by any one of the parties in a subsequent
suit between them as to such professional communications.'
Some of the cases seem to confine the operation of this excep-
tion to communications made where the other parties to the
transaction or suit were present,^ and in such a case the at-
torney may testify, though at the time he was only acting for
one party to the suit.'
§ 172. Permanent character of the privilege — Its waiver.
The termination of the pending litigation or the severance of
the relation of attorney and client by the death of the client
or for any cause does not unseal the lips of the former as to
communications passing between them while the connection
existed.* The privilege is designed to protect the client, and
he may consequently waive it. So it has been held that this
may be done after the death of the client by his representative,
but only when an application of the rule would be to the dis-
advantage of his estate.^ While the client is living the priv-
haps this would not be so in the case of v. Boone, 102 N. C. 137 ; Hard v. Ash-
an agent acting for a natural person, ley, 63 Hun, 634 ; Greer v. Greer, 58
So the regularly appointed attorney Hun, 251.
for a municipal corporation will not 3 Carey v. Carey, 108 N. O. 267 ;
be compelled to divulge communica- Deuser v. Walkup, 43 Mo. App. 625 ;
tions made to him professionally by Greer v. Greer, supra; In re Smith,
a municipal board or officer. People 61 Hun, 101 ; 15 N. Y. S. 425 ; In re
V. Gilon, 18 Civ. Pro. E. 109. McCarthy, 65 HuQ, 624. But in a
1 Sparks v. Sparks (Kan., 1893), 33 suit between strangers such coin-
Pac. Rep. 893 ; Michael v. Foil, 100 munications would doubtless be priv-
N. C. 189; In re Bauer, 79 Cal. 313; ileged.
Gulick V. Gulick, 39 N. J. L. 516; * Wilson v. Eastall, 4 T. R 759;
Cady V. Walker, 63 Mich. 157 ; Lynn Morris v. Cain, 39 La. Ann. 712 ; 1 S.
V. Lyerle, 113 111. 134; Hurlbut v. Rep. 879; Kant v. Kessler, 114 Pa. St.
Hurlbut, 128 N. Y. 420; Hanlon v. 603; Walter v. Fairohild, 4 N. Y. S.
Doherty, 109 Ind. 37 ; Tyler v. Tyler, 559; Barry v. Coville, 7 id. 36; 1
126 111. 525. Greenl. on Evid., g 243.
2 Hurlbut v. Hurlbut, 138 N. Y. 430 ; sLay man's Wills, 40 Minn. 373 ; Mor-
Colt V. McConnell, 1 16 Ind. 356 ; Good- ris v. Morris, 119 Ind. 343 ; Blackburn
win Company's Appeal, 117 Pa. St v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 175 ; Russell v.
537; Hanlon v. Doherty, 109 Ind. 37; Jackson, 15 Jur. 1117. Contra, Loder
Smith V. Crego, 7 N. Y. S. 86 ; Hughes v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y. 345 ; Westover
§ 173.] PEITILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. 253
ilege is wholly personal and cannot be waiv^ed by any other,
person merely because he stands in privity with the client;'
on the other liand, while he is living his agent, or after his
decease his personal representative, may, it seems, claim the
privilege by which the attorney is prohibited from testifying-
The privilege is forever waived if immediate objection is not
taken when the attorney or other professional person is ex-
amined' as a witness, or where the client has disclaimed the
existence of the relationship,* or has called the attorney to
testif}^ to the tenor of such communications,' or upon the stand
himself discloses voluntarily the facts contained in his commu-
nications."
§ 173. Pi'ivilege as to documents. — The attorney cannot
be compelled to produce or disclose the nature of any writing
which he has seen '• or which is in his possession belonging to
his client.^ He will be permitted to testify that such docu-
ments exist, that he has searched for them, and that they are
or are not in bis custody, when it is sought to prove their con-
tents by secondary evidence." A communication to an at-
torney acting in the capacity of conveyancer is privileged,'"
V. Life Ins. Co., 99 id. 56. Cf. Valen- ' Arbuckle v. Templeton, 25 Atl.
sin V. Valensin, 14 Pac. Eep. 397 ; 73 Rep. 1093.
Cal. 106. 8 Volant v. Soyer, 13 Q. B. 231;
' State V. Jones, 13 S. E. Rep. 335 ; Mathews v. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq.
Bouman V. Norton, 5 C. & P. 177. 455; 21 Atl. Rep. 1054; Liggett v.
2Edington v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 67 Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 881.
N. Ys 185. Cf. Pierson v. People, 79 9 Dale v. Livingstone, 4 Wend. 558 ;
N. Y. 424. Jackson v. McVey, 18 Johns. 330;
3 Hoyt V. Hoyt, 112 N. Y. 513. Brandt v. Klein. 17 id. 335 ; Mills v.
< In re Mellen, 63 Hun, 623. Oddy, 6 C. & P. 728 ; Stokoe v. St.
■'Masterson v. Boyoe, 6 N. Y. S. 65 ; Paul M. & M. R. Co., 40 Minn. 546 ;
McKinney v. Grand St. etc. R. R. Co., Coveney v. Tannahill, 1 Hill, 33 :
104N.Y.355; Smith v. Crego, 7 N. Y. Allen v. Root, 39 Tex. 589; Harris-
S. 86. burg Car Mfg. Co. v. Sloan (Ind.,
6 State V. Tall, 43 Minn. 376 ; People 1889), 21 N. E. Rep. 1088.
V. Gallagher, 75 Mich. 515 ; Hunt v. w Bingham v. Walk, 27 N. E. Rep.
Blackburn, 9 S. Ct. 125 ; 128 U. S. 464. 483 ; 128 Ind. 164 ; Crane v. BarkdoU,
The fact that the client denies on the 59 Md. 534 ; Wilson v. Troup, 7 Johns,
witness stand that he made a certain Ch. 35 ; GetzlafE v. Seliger, 43 Wis.
statement to his attorney will not 397 ; Mathews' Estate, 5 Pa. L. J. Rep.
authorize proof thereof by the latter's 149; O'Neill v. Murray, 6 Dak. 107.
evidence. State v. James, 34 S. C. But contra. In re Smith, 61 Hun, 101 ;
579. Brazel v. Fair, 26 S. C. 870 ; Caldwell
254r
PEIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.
[§ 174.
though he acts for both parties to the deed of convey-
ance.'
§ 174. What communications are witliin the privilege. —
In order that a communication to an attorney may be privi-
leged it is not essential that an}?^ particular litigation, suit or
other legal proceeding should be pending. If the relation of
client and attorney exists it is sufficient ; for, whatever the
transaction may be, and whether or not it is likely to be sub-
sequently litigated, the attorney will not be permitted to dis-
close the confidential communication or advice.^ But a com-
munication made bj'' a client to his attorney in regard to a
future infraction of the criminal law by the former, or advice
given as to the means of evading the consequence of a crimi-
nal or fraudulent act which he intends to commit, is not privi-
leged ; ' nor is the mouth of the attorney closed as to commu-
nications or acts arising out of a conspiracy to defraud in
which both attorney and client* are participants. And the
fact that the attorney is innocent of fraud, and ignorant of
i-he wrongful use which his client intends to make of his ad-
r. Davis, 10 Colo. 481; O'Neill v.
Hurray, 6 Dak. 107; Thomas v.
iJriffeu (Ind., 1890), 27 N. E. Rep. 754.
Though it must be clearly shown
that he acted as a scrivener only.
1 Clay V. Williams, 3 Munf. 105, 133.
It is for the court to determine in what
capacity and for what purpose docu-
ments were deposited with an attor-
ney (Reg. V. Jones, 1 Denio Cr. Cas.
166), and whether they are confiden-
tial and thus inadmissible. Amey v.
Long, 9 East, 473 ; Reynolds v. Rowley,
3 Rob. (La.) 261 ; Batesen v. Hartsink,
4 Esp. 43 ; Hughes v. Boone, 102 N. C.
43. A client cannot avoid the pro-
duction of papers not themselves
privileged by depositing them with
his attorney. Edison El. Co. y. U. S.
Elec. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 394
2 Minet v. Morgan, L. R 8 Ch. 361 ;
Penruddock v. Hammond, 11 Beav.
59 ; Belzhover v. Blackstock, 3 Watts,
20; Foster v. Hall, 13 Pick. 89, 92;
Pearse v. Pearse, 16 L. J. Ch. 153;
Bingham v. Walk, 138 Ind. 164; 27
N. E. Rep. 483 ; In re McCarthy, 59
Hun, 636. The question whether an
opinion rendered before a litigation
was begun or after it was in contem-
plation, but without direct reference
to it, or after it had been terminated
and wliile no particular action was
pending or contemplated, though
much discussed in the early cases is
now settled, and the privilege ex-
tends to all advice whenever given.
For a full consideration on the point
see 1 Greenl. on Evid., g§ 240, 340a.
» Heckman v. Green (Mo., 1893), 32
S. W. Rep. 455; Russell v. Jackson,
15 Jur. 1117; Everett v. State (Tex.,
1892), 18 S. W. Rep. 674; Bank of
Utica V. Mersereau, 8 Barb. Ch. 538 ;
Orraan v. State, 32 Te.x. App. 604.
< People V. Sheriff, 29 Barb. 633;
Mathews v. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq.
458; SIAU. Rep. 1054.
§ 175.] PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. 255
vice,' w\]\ deprive the interview of its professional charac-
ter, as full confidence is withheld by the client. To destroy
the privilege fraud must be clearly shown,^ and the test of
fraud in a civil suit is the issue arising from the pleadings.'
An attorney may testify that one alleged to be his, client made
no communication to him or received no advice,* and he may
repeat a statement made to him (though made while he was
acting in a professional capacity) by a third person to whom
he was referred by his client,^ or communications by the client
which were intended to be imparted to other persons through
the attorney," or a conversation between two persons in his
presence, though both were his clients.'
As this privilege is designed for the client's protection, he
cannot be compelled to disclose anything that passed between
him and his attorney when, being a party to an action, he
takes the witness stand in his own behalf.^ But an accom-
plice turning state's evidence may be compelled to disclose
information which is contained in a communication to an
attorney, as he is conclusively presumed to have waived all
privileges.^
§ 175. Privilege of police, judicial and exec>utive officials.
The administration of justice and the interest of society de-
mand that information obtained by judicial or police officials
in the detection or prosecution of crime should remain un-
divulged."" This principle was recognized at common law, and
iThe Queen v. Cox, L. R. 14 Q. B. Bigler v. Reyher, 48 lud. 113; Hem-
D. 153 ; Greenough v. Guskell, 1 My. enway v. Smith, 28 Vt. 701 ; State v.
& K. 98 ; Gartside v. Outram, 26 L. White, 19 Kan. 445 ; Duttenhofer v.
J. Ch. 113; Follett v. Jeffereyes, 1 State, 34 Ohio St. 91. Conti-a,Wo-
Sim. (N. S.) 8; Orman v. State, 22 burn v. Henshaw, 101 Mass. 193;
Tex. App. 604; Mathews v. Hoag- Montgomery v. Pickering, 116 id. 227.
land, 48 N. J. Eq. 455. Of. Durkee v. Leland, 4 Vt. 613.
2 Higbee v. Dresser, 103 Mass. 523. 5 Jones v. State, 65 Miss. 179 ; 3 S.
3 Mathews v. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq. Rep. 379,
455 ; 21 Atl. Rep. 1054. i" " Courts of justice, therefore, will
4 Daniel v. Daniel, 39 Pa. St. 191. not compel or allow the discovery of
5 In re Meller, 63 Hun, 633. such information either by the sub-
6 Ferguson v. MoBean, 91 Cal. 63; ordinate officer to whom it is given,
Lloyd V. Davis, 2 Ind. App. 170 ; In by the informer himself or by any
re Meller, 63 Hun, 633 ; Galle v. Tode, other person without the permission
26 N. Y. S. 633. of the government." Per Gray, J.,
'In re Weaver, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. R in Worthington v. Scribner, 109 Mass.
516. 487.
8 Barker v. Kubo, 38 Iowa, 805;
256 PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. [§ 175.
no witness was compellable to disclose the name of an in-
former 'or any communications which were made or act done
relating to the detection of a crime, any farther than was
needed to ascertain fairly and justly the guilt or innocence of
the accused.^ But the necessity or desirability of the dis-
closure of the information, in order to establish the innocence
of the prisoner,^ or because public interest would suffer or be
benefited, is one for the court to determine on all the circum-
stances of each particular case.*
Official communications, consultations and transactions bo-
tween superior and subordinate executive or legislative offi-
cials are also within the rule of privilege.'" So an assessor of
taxes will not be permitted to disclose as a witness in a suit
between third persons the sworn statements made to him by
the owners of property;^ nor will a witness be permitted to
divulge a communication between the attorney-general and a
United States district attorney,' or between a military officer
and his commander-in-chief,^ or between the president of the
United St^ates and the governor of a state commonwealth.'
Whether a member of a legislative body can be compelled
to testify to what took place therein has been differently de-
cided. In England it is held he cannot,'" though it was held
that a senator of the United States may be compelled to tes-
tify to what took place in secret session when the senate re-
fused to remove the bar of secrecy therefrom.''
1 Attorney-General v. Briant, 15 7 United States v. Six Lots of
L. J. Exch. 265. Ground, 1 Woods, C. C. 234.
2Vogel V. Gruaz, 110 U. S. 311; SHome v. Bentioclj,2Brod. &Bing.
Rex T. Hardy, 24 How. St. Tr. 753, 130; Cooire v. Maxwell, 3 Stark. 183.
808 ; < Rex v. Watson, 2 Stark. 136 ; » Gray v. Pentland, 3 S. & R. 33 ;
United States v. Moses, 4 Wasli. C. 1 Burr's Trial, pp. 186, 187.
C. 736. 10 Chubb v. Salomons, 3 C. & K. 75 ;
3 Marks v. Beifus, 25 Q. B. Div. 494. Plunkett v. Cobbett, 29 How. St. Tr.
« Reg. V. Richardson, 3 F. & F. 693. 71, 72.
This matter is now sometimes regu- ULaw v. Scott, 5 Har. & J. 438.
lated by statute. Cal. Civ. Code, The rule in England is thus stated by
§ 1881 ; Colo. Act 1883, p. 289; Minn. Sir James Stephen: "No one can be
Stats., § 5094. compelled to give evidence relating
STotten v. United States, 93 U. S. to any affair of state or as to official
105. communications between public offi-
* Witters v. Sowles, 33 Fed. Rep. cers upon public aiTairs, except with
130. the permission of the oflBcer at the
§ 1T6.]
PEIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.
257
§176. Privilege as relating to jurors. — In order to obtain
freedom of discussion and to prevent the flight of suspected
persons, the law requires that the proceedings of grand juries
should be kept secret, though the jurors are not sworn to
secrecy.' In the absence of statute prescribing when a grand
juror may testify, unless his evidence is absolutely essential
to protect private rights or advance public justice, he is not
compellable to give evidence as to what passed ,in the jury-
room.^ It has been held that a grand juror may be compelled
to testify to the number concurring in the indictment,' or he
may be called to show that the evidence of a witness on the
trial is inconsistent with that given by him before the grand
jurj'';* to confirm the evidence of a witness,' to point out
irregularities in the indictment which are not due to miscon-
duct of the grand jurors,* or to show that the defendant was
not examiried as a witness before the grand jury.' If the
statute enumerates the cases in which a grand juror may tes-
tify he will not be permitted to do so in others.*
head of the department concerned,
or to ■ give evidence of what took
place in either house of parliament,
without the leave of the house,
though he may state that a particu-
lar person acted as speaker." Ste-
phen's Dig. Evid., art 112.
I People V. Reggel (Utah, 1893), 38
Pac. Rep. 955; Little v. Cora., 35
Gratt. (Va.) 981 ; United States v.
Reed, 3 Blatoh. (U. S.) 435 ; Com, v.
Hall, 65 Mass. 137.
estate V. Oxford, 30 Tex. 428;
State V. Hamlin, 47 Conn. 114; State
V. Mewherter, 47 Iowa, 88 ; Kennedy
V. HoUaday, 16 S. W. Rep. 688 ; 105
Mo. 84; Creek v. State, 34 Ind. 151;
Watts V. Territory, 1 Wash. Ter. 409 ;
State V. Broughton, 7 Ired. L. (N. C.)
96 ; Jones v. Turpin, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.)
181, and cases infra. The secrecy of
grand jury proceedings is due to the
public alone, and is not a privilege
of the witnesses who testify before
it (People V. Young, 31 Cal. 568), or
17
of a person indicted. People v. Reg-
gel (Utah, 1893), 88 Pac. Rep. 955.
3 Low's Case, 4 Me. 439; Sparren-
berger v. State, 53 Ala. 481 ; CheiTy
V. State, 6 Fla. 679 ; Com. v. Smith,
9 Mass. 109 ; People v, Shattuck, 6.
Abb. N. C. 33.
* Jones V. Turpin, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.).
181 ; Little v. Com., 85 Gratt (Va.)--
921 ; Com. v. Mead, 12 Gray (Mass.)/-
167; State v. Fassett, 16 Conn. 468;.
United States v. Reid, 2 Blatchf.
435; State v. Wood, 53 N. H. 484;:
People V. Hulbut, 4 Denio (N. Y.),
133.
sPellum V. State, 89 Ala. 88;- Per-
kins V. State, 4 Ind. 323.
6 People V. Briggs, 60 How. Pr, 17.
7 Com. V. Hill, 65 Mass. 137.
8 Com. V. Snowden (Ky., 1892), IT
S. W. Rep. 205; Burnham v. Hat-
field, 5 Black. (Ind.) 81 ; Way v. But-
terworth, 106 Mass. 75; Burdick v.
Hunt, 43 Ind. 381; Heidekoper v.
Cotton, 3 Watts (Pa.),, 56;- Ex- parte
258
PEIVILKGED COMMDNICATIONS.
[§ 177.
In regard to traverse jurors, the general principle seems to
be that they may testify to facts or communications referring
to their individual acts while separated from their associates.'
So they may testify to what third persons said or did to them
as jurors. But the motives and reasons of the jurors and
the transactions and communications between them relating
to the subject-matter under their consideration as an official
body and which were made in their capacity as jurors, whether
in the jury-room or elsewhere,^ are privileged, and to these
the testimony of a juror is neither compellable nor allowable.'
§177. Confidential communications to clergymen. — The
common law, while permitting the penitent to confess his
shortcomings to his spiritual adviser, protected the former
only to the extent that the clergyman was excused from re-
Sontag, 64 Cal. 525 ; Sands v. Robi-
son, 13 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 854 ; State
v. Grady, 84 Mo. 220. A state stat-
ute allowing grand jurors to testify
is binding on federal courts sitting
in that state. Fotheringham v.
Adams Ex. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 646.
1 Harrington, etc. Co. v. Railroad
Co. (Mass., 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 955.
2 Cora. V. White, 147 Mass. 76.
' State V. Freeman, 5 Conn. 348 ;
Heffron v. Gallupe, 55 Me. 563;
Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 455 ;
Rowe V. Canney, 139 Mass. 41. Cf.
Tucker v. So. Kingston, 5 R. I. 558 ;
Boston, etc. Corp. v. Dana, 1 Grey, 83,
105; Paige v. Chedsey, 20 N. Y. S.
899 ; Tenney v. Evans, 13 N. H. 462 ;
Dane v. Tucker, 4 Johns. 487 ; War-
ren V. Spencer Water Co., 143 Mass.
155. So evidence by members of the
jury that they agreed upon a verdict
through ill-will toward a party (John-
son V. Parrotte, 34 Neb. 26 ; 51 N. W.
Rep. 390), that third persons had con-
versed with them in the jurv-room
(Gardner v. Minea, 47 Minn. 295), or
that a chance or quotient verdict was
agreed on (Moss v. Cen. Park R. R.
Co., 23 N. Y. S. 23; Crossdale v. Tan-
tum, 6 Houst (Del.) 218), is inadmis-
sible. Cf. Pawnee Ditch Co. v.
Adams (Colo., 1893), 28 Pac. Rep. 662;
Lift V. Lingane, 17 R. L 420 ; 33 Atl
Rep. 942; State v. Dusenberry, 113
Mo. 377; State v. Plum, 49 Kan. 379;
Mattox V. United States, 146 U. S.
140; State v. Best, 111 N. C. 638;
Weatherford v. State, 31 Tex. Crim.
Rep. 530 ; Flood v. McClure (Idaho,
1883), 32 Pac. Rep. 354. In Wood-
ward V. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453, the
court says: " The proper evidence of
the decision of the jury is their ver-
dict returned by them upon oath and
affirmed in court, and it is essential
to the freedom and independence of
their deliberations that their discus-
sions should be secret and inviola-
ble. . . . The decisive reasons for
excluding the testimony of jurors to
the motives and influences which af-
fected their deliberations are equally
strong whether the evidence is offered
to impeach or sustain their verdict"
But a juror may testify that there
were blood-stains on an article which
was shown to the jury at a former
trial Woolfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69.
§ 178.] PBIVILEGED OOMMUNICATIONS. 259
porting the delinquent to the magistrate.' A communication
or confession to a minister or priest was otherwise on a par
with one to a layman, and the former might at common law
be compelled to divulge any admission or confession ^ made to
him in his professional capacity.'
At the present time in many states statutory provision has
been made by which a clergyman or minister of any religion
is prohibited from disclosing a confession made to him in his
professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined
by the rules or practice of the religious body to which he be-
longs.* So, too, it is often provided by'statute that no person
authorized to practice physio or surgery shall be allowed
to disclose any information which he may have acquired in
attending any patient in a professional capacity and which
was necessary to enable him to prescribe for him as a physi-
cian or treat him as a surgeon.^
§178. Communications to physicians. — At common law
a communication to a physician is not privileged, and how-
ever indiscreet a medical man may be in disclosing volun-
tary professional secrets, in a court of law he may be com-
pelled involuntarily to do so.^ But this rule was never
regarded with favor, and it was strongly intimated in a lead-
ing case ' that instances might arise when the fact that these
matters were not privileged would be much lamented.
Every consideration of public policy that furnishes a basis
1 Butler V. Moore, cited in McNally, braska Code, p. 673 ; Wisconsin Ann.
Evid.'353, 354. Stat, § 4074; Ohio R. S., § 5341,
2 In Broad v. Pitt, 3 C. & B. 518, cli. 1. Similar statutes have been
the court says, obiter: " I, for one, passed in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho,
will never compel a clergyman to Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
disclose communications made to Washington and Wyoming. In the
him by a prisoner, but if he chooses otlier states the common law still
to disclose them I shall receive them prevails.
in evidenca" * See supra.
3 Cora. V. Drake, 15 Mass. 161. « Duchess of Kingston's Case, 11
4 N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. 833 ; Califor- Harg. St. Tr. 243 ; 30 Howell's St. Tr.
nia Civ. Code, § 1881 ; Indiana R S., 643; Rex v. Gibbons, 1 C. & P. 97;
g 497 ; Colorado Acts of 1888, p. 289 ; Broad v. Pitt, 3 C. & P. 578 ; Steageld
Michigan, Howell's Ann. St, g 7515; v. State, 24 Tex. 287; 8 S. W. Rep.
Kansas Gen. Stat, § 4418 ; Iowa Rev. 771.
Code, § 8643; Minnesota Stat, § 5094, 'Wilson v. Eastall, 4 Term E, 756.
ch. 3; Missouri E. S., § 8935; Ne-
260 PEIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. [§ 178.
for the privileged character of a comraunication by a client
to an attorney is applicable in the relation of physician and
patient. Aside from the protection thrown around the pa-
tient himself, the danger that truth will be perverted or con-;
cealed by the physician, perhaps unconsciously, in the struggle
between professional honor and legal duty is entirely ob-
viated.i
As by the terms of the statute only such information or
communications are privileged as the physician receives pro-
fessionally, he will be allowed to testify to facts with which
he has become acquainted in a non-professional capacity.^ On
the other hand, by the term " matter communicated to them
in the course of their professional duties" is included all
knowledge whether gained by the physician from his obser-
vation or the examination of the patient or from the latter's
declarations.' So the statute cannot be construed to prevent
a physician from testifying to information which was not nec-
essary to enable him to prescribe for the patient;'' as, for ex-
ample, to the fact that he attended a person, the number of
times he called,^ and the persons who were present when he
called." The privilege is so far personal that it can only be
Waived by the patient ' or by his agent authorized to do so.
1 Patten v. U. L. & Ace. Ins. Co., 133 N. Y. 450; Brown v. L. Ins. Co.,
61 Hun, 627 ; Freel v. Market St. 65 Mich. 306 ; Numrich v. Supreme
etc. Co. (Cal., 1893), 31 Pac. Rep. 730. Lodge, 3 N. Y. S. 552 ; Cooley v. Foltz,
A partuer of a physician who is 85 Mich. 47 : 48 N. W. Rep. 176.
present at a consultation between ^Pandjiris v. McQueen, 59 'Hun,
the former and a patient will not be 625.
permitted to divulge information 'Carringtoh v. St. Louis, 89 Mo.
thus acquired by him. ^tna Ins, 208 ; Blair v. Railroad Co., 89 id. 334 ;
Co. v. Deming, 133 Ind. 415. Valensin v. Valensin, 78 Cal. 106 ;
2 In re Sliney, 137 N. Y. 570 ; Fisher McKinney v. Railroad Co., 104 N. Y.
v. Fisher, 139 N. Y. 654 ; In re Lowen- 353; 118 id. 77; Record v. Village,
stein, 2 Misc. Rep. 323 ; People v. 46 Hun, 448 ; Jones v. Brooklyn, 3 N.
Schuyler, 106 N. Y. 303; Viel v. Y. S. 353. A waiver by the insured
Cowles, 45 Hun, 307 ; Brown v. Rome, binds the beneficiary. Andrews v.
etc. R. R Co., 45 Hun, 439. Mut. R. L. F. Ass'n, 84 Fed. Rep. 870.
" Heuston v. Simpson, 17 N. E. Rep. As to waiver by implication, see State
261 ; 115 Ind. 163 ; Kling v. Kansas v. Depoister (Nev., 1891), 35 Pac. Rep.
City, 27 Mo. App. 281. 1000. A certificate of death made
* Campau v. North, 39 Mich. 606 ; out by the attending physician and
Gooley v. Foltz, 48 N. W. Rep. 176. furnished as proof of death to an in-
'Patton V. Un, L. & Aco. Ass'n, surance company is not privileged.
§ 178.]
PEIVILEGED C0MMDNI0ATI0N8.
261
After hi^ death, in an action brought by. or against his repre-
sentative, the privilege may be invoked by the latter and a
physician be prohibited froin disclosing communications made
to him while attending the deceased.' On the other hand, it
has been held that the personal representative cannot waive
the privilege and place the physician upon the stand to testify
as regards communications made to him by the deceased.^ The
courts in laying down the rule that the privilege is absolute
and cannot bo waived by a representative of a deceased pa-
tient have proceeded on the supposition that the communica-
tion, if divulged, might tend to disgrace the memory of the
deceased.' But it has been held that communications made
by the deceased to his physician were admissible in a trial
for the murder of the patient, the disclosure in these cases
being demanded to protect the community from the perpetra-
tion of secret crime * and the communications containing noth-
ing to disgrace the deceased's memory.^ So in probate cases.
Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Association, 126 N.
Y. 450.
1 Breisenmeistef v. Sup. Lodge, 81
Mich. 535; Grattan v. Life Ins. Co.,
80 N. Y. 281 ; Dilleber v. Mut Life
Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 256 ; Cohen v. Cout
L Ins. Co., 69 id. 308 ; Com. Life Ins.
Co. V. Union Trust Co., 113 U. S. 254 ;
Edington v. Mut Life Ins. Co., 67 N.
Y. 185 ; Staunton v. Parker, 19 Hun,
55.
2Westover v. ^t'na L. L Co., 99 N.
Y. 57 ; In re Flint's Estate (Cal., 1893),
34 Pao. Rep. 863. See, also, the re-
marks of Ruger, C. J., in McKinney
V. Grand St R. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 352.
Contra, Morris v. Morris, 119 Ind.
343 ; Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo. 160 ;
13S. W. Rep. 810. Wliere two physi-
cians attend a patient, the fact that
the latter puts one on the stand does
not waive the privilege as to the
other. Mellor v. Missouri P. R. Co.,
105 Mo. 455 ; 16 S. W. Rep. 849. In
New York the representative may
now by statute waive the privilege
except so far as communications ex-
pressly confidential are concerned
and facts which would disgrace the
memory of deceased. Laws 1891,
ch. a81, p. 736. Of. Gurley v. Park
(Ind., 1893), 35 N. E. Rep. 279. If the
privilege is waived at the first trial it
may be claimed on a subsequent ti'ial
of the same issue. Breisenmeister v.
Lodge, 81 Mich. 525.
5 Judge Earl in Pierson v. People,
79 N. Y. 434.
* People V. Harris, 33 N. E. Rep. 65 ;
136 N. Y. 423.
6 Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y. 424 ;
People V. Harris, 136 N. Y 433. But
cf. contra, Pfeople v. Brewer, 53 Hun,
217. But it has recently been held
that as the statute was not designed
to protect murderers, a physician
might testify to the fact that he re-
moved a dead foetus from the de-
ceased, and that at that time the
defendant stated to him that he had
performed an operation on her, she
being his wife and he being on trial
for her subsequent homicide. It may
be observed that this testimony was
262 PEIVILEGEB COMMUNICATIONS. [§ 178a.
where a question arises as to tlie capacity of the testator,
neither the proponent nor contestant of the will is permitted
to examine a physician who attended him professionally as
regards information thus acquired.^
While the statute should receive a liberal construction, it is
nevertheless the true rule that any objection to the testimony
of the physician should be promptly interposed before his
reply has been elicited.^ Where the relation of physician and
patient exists, it is immaterial that the former was not sum-
moned by the patient but by some relative, friend or by-
stander.' So, usuall}'', it will be presumed that any informa
tion imparted was given for the purpose of aiding the physi-
cian in subscribing for the patient.* Where a physician is
sent to examine the mental or physical condition of a person
with a view to determining his sanity, the information thus
gained, exclusive of all information which he may have ac-
quired of the prisoner personally, is not privileged. The phy-
sician may testify to the condition of mind or body in which
he found the prisoner.'
§ 178a. Telegrams are not privileged. — Eeasoning from
the privileged character which has been conferred by act of
congress upon letters and other communications which are
carried in the mails, it has been suggested to and urged upon
the courts that a telegraph company and its employees occupy
a confidential relation towards the sender of the telegram,
obviously calculated to disgrace the witness to practice medicine is not
memory of the patient People v. objected to at the trial it will be pre-
Harris, 136 N. Y. 433. sumed by the appellate court that he
iRenihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y. was properly licensed. Village v.
577; Loder v. Whelpley, 111 id. 345; Record, 46 Hun, 448.
Coleman's Will, 111 id. 335; Heuston 2Hoyt v. Hoyt, 113 N. Y. 518.
V. Simpson, 115 Ind. 63. Of. In re ' Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y. 577.
Neill's Estate, 7 N. Y. S. 197 ; Hoyt <Feeney v. L. L R. R. Co, 116 N. Y.
V. Hoyt, 113 N. Y. 493 ; Herrington 380 ; Grattan v. Metropolitan L. Ins.
V. Winn, 14 N. Y. S. 613 ; Erigham Co., 80 N. Y. 381, 397 ; Renihan v.
V. Gott, 3 N. Y. S. 513, as regards tes- Dennin, 103 id. 573 ; Kling v. Kansas
timony of physician as to declara- City, 37 Mo. App. 331.
tions of testator not made to him 5 People v. Kimmler, 119 N. Y. 585 ;
professionally. An objection to the People v. Schuyler, 13 N. E. Rep. 783;
evidence of a physician must be made 7 N. Y. Crim. R 363 ; People v. Sliiiey,
prior to its reception or it will be 137 N. Y. 570. Cf. In re Benson, 16
waived, Breisenmeister v. Lodge, 81 N. Y. S. 111.
Mich. 535. If the qualification of the
§ 178a.J TEIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. 263
and that they should not be permitted or compelled to divulge
any information which is contained in any message delivered
to thevn for the purpose of transmission. The statute referred
to is limited in its operation to mail matter alone, and could
not, by the most liberal construction, be held to include tele-
graphic dispatches. In the absence of any statutory provision
creating a different rule, the operator or other agent of the
telegraph company will be compelled by a suh^pwna duces tecum
to produce the telegrams in his possession ; ' or he may be
compelled to testify orally to the contents of a dispatch where
the absence of the writing itself is satisfactorily accounted for:^
1 Ex parte Brown, 72 Mo. 83 ; Na- ^ state v. Litchfield, 58 Me. 267.
tional Bank v. National Bank, 7 W.
Va. 544
CHAPTER XV.
EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
(185. Definition.
186. Matter of common knowl-
edge — Opinions of non-
experts, when admissible.
187. Expert evidence, when ad-
missible,
188. Competency and examination
of experts.
189. Cross - examination of ex-
perts — Use of scientific
books as evidence.
190. The weight and credibility of
expert and opinion evi-
dence.
191. Compensation of expert wit-
nesses.
193. Physicians as experts — Cause
of death.
§ 193, Evidence of medical experts
to show character of disease
and blood-stains — Expert
evidence as to autopsies and
malpractice.
194. Non-expert evidence upon a
person's physical condition.
195. Chemists as experts — Poisons.
196. Expert evidence where sexual
crimes have been commit-
ted— Abortion.
197. Expert and non-expert evi-
dence upon insanity.
198. Mechanical experts.
199. Expert evidence as to value.
300. Underwriters as experts.
301. Experiments in and out of
court.
303. Physical examination of the
party by experts.
§ 185. Definition. — "An expert is a person who possesses
peculiar skill and knowledge upon the subject-matter on which
he is called to testify ; " * and expert evidence is evidence which
1 State V. Phair, 48 Vt. 366. For
other cases defining the word, see
Dole V. Johnson, 50 N. H. 454;
Overby v. Chesa. & Ohio Ey. Co., 37
W. Va. 534; Nelson v. Sun Ins. Co.,
71 N. Y. 453; Bird v. State, 31 Gratt.
(Va.) 800; Dickenson v. Pitchberg,
13 Gray, 546 ; Mobile L. Ins. Co. v.
Walker, 58 Ala. 390 ; Hyde v. Wool-
folk, 1 Iowa, 166; Heald v. Thwing,
45 Me. 394; Toomes' ^state, 54 Cal.
514 ; Travis v. Brown, 43 Pa. St. 13 ;
BufEum v. Harris, 5 R. I. 250 ; Con-
gress, etc. Co. v. Edgar, 99 U. S. 657.
Whether study and experience are
both required, or whether either
alone is sufficient to constitute an
expert, depends upon the circum-
stances of the case. Ardesco Oil Co.
V. Gilson, 63 Pa. St. 146. In some
cases it has been held that a witness
whose knowledge was gained by
study alone or by conversation with
persons familiar with the subject
was not an expert. Railroad v.
Finlay (Kan., 1888), 16 Pac. Rep. 951 ;
Hass V. Marshall (Pa., 1888), 14 Atl.
Rep. 431; Wiokes v. Light Co., 70
Mich. 333. Contra, Fort Wayne v.
Coombs, 107 Ind. 75; Fordyce v.
§ 186.] BXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE. 265
is given by such a person upon matters that are not within
the range of men of ordinary knowledge and observation.
Witnesses, as a general rule, must testify to facts. To permit
them to state their opinions, or their conclusions or inferences
drawn from facts, is to invade the province of the jury. Many
exceptions to the rule are recognized where the facts, from
their peculiar nature, cannot be properly described to the jury
or understood or appreciated by them. .
§186. Matter of common knowledge — Opinions of non-
experts, when admissible. — "Where the matter or transaction
under consideration is such that all the facts Can be intelligibly
ascertained by men of average mental training or intelligence,
where no peculiar skill, experience or knowledge is required
to form an opinion, — in other words, where the facts are such
as come within the knowledge, observation and judgment of
ordinary men, — opinion evidence is not admissible.^ In such
case a witness who is called to testify to facts within his own
knowledge should not be allowed to state his inferences, his
beliefs or his mental impressions which are not recollections
of facts, or to give his conclusions as to the legal consequence
of facts.^ If, however, the witness, in testifying to a conclu-
Mpore (Tex., 1893), 33 S. W. Rep. 793; St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Yar-
335. On the other hand, experience borough, 56 Ark. 613; Stowe v.
in many cases being necessarily all Bishop, 58 Vt. 498 ; Penn. R. R. Co.
that can be had, is enough to make v. Conlan, 101. 111. 93; Brinkley v.
one an expert. But the court may State, 89 Ala. 34 ; Milw. etc. Co.
refuse to hear an expert witness v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469; Avery v.
where, though experienced in his Railroad Co., 131 N. Y. 31.
profession or trade, his general in- 2 Richardson v. Stringfellow (Ala.,
telligence is of a low order. Broquet 1894), 14 S. Rep. 283 ; Lovejoy v.
V. Tripp, 36 Kan. 700; 14 Pac. Rep. Hart (Minn., 1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 57:
237. , Dove v. Royal Insurance Co. (Mich. .
1 Overby v. C. & O. R. Co., 37 W. 1894), 57 id. 30; Shifflet v. Morell, 4
Va. 524; Bergquist v. Iron Co., 49 S. W. Rep. 483; 68 Tex. 382; John-
Minn. 511 ; 53 N. W. Rep. 136 ; son v. Glover, 131 111. 483 ; 10 N. E.
Man. Ace. Ind. Co. v. Dorgan, 58 Rep. 314; 13 id. 257; Half v. Curtis,
Fed. Rep. 945; Reeves v. State 5 S. W. Rep. 451 ; 68 Tex. 640 ; Tait
(Ala., 1893), 11 S. Rep. 296; KaufiE- v. Hall, 12 Pac. Rep. 391; 71 Cal.
man v. Maier, 94 Cal. 269 ; Sappen- 449 ; Meade v. Carolina Bank, 26 S.
field V. Main St. etc. Co., 91 Cal. 48; C. 608; Barre v. Reading City Pass.
111. Cent. R. R. Co. v. People (111., Ry. Co., 26 Atl. Rep. 99; 155 Pa, St.
1893), 33N. E.Rep. 173; Toledo, etc. 170; Lyts v. Keevey, 5 Wash. St.
Co. V. Jackson (Ind., 1893), 83 id. 606; 33 Pac. Rep. 534; Larson v.
266 EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE. [§ 186.
aion of law, also states facts which are sufficient to enable the
jury to draw their own conclusion, if they believe his state-
ments of fact to be true, the error in permitting the admission
of the conclusion is cured.'
Where the question at issue is whether a person exercised
reasonable diligence, care or skill, or whether machinery or a
building was in a safe condition, and the facts are such that
any man having common knowledge, experience or education
is capable of forming a just conclusion upon the facts as they
are narrated, the opinion of a witness, whether expert or non-
expert, is inadmissible, as the question of negligence is for the
jury alone.^
On the other hand, if negligence is alleged in the use
of any implement, article or thing which is so far outside of
the knowledge of persons of ordinary intelligence that the}'
are incompetent to draw correct inferences from the facts, or
if the facts are such that they cannot properly be described
unless the opinion of the witness is also stated, then an expert
or non-expert witness, respectively, may give an opinion as to
a person's care, diligence or skill.'
Lombard Inv. Co. (Minn., 1893), 53 Girard v. Kalamazoo (Mich., 1893),
N. W. Rep. 179 ; Frezinski v. New- 53 N. W. Rep. lOai ; Johnston v.
borg, 43 111. App. 406. As sustain- Oregon S. L. & U. N. Co. (1893), 31
ing the proposition that conclusions Pac. Rep. 283; Kendrick v. Central
of law are not admissible as evi- R. R. Co., 89 Ga. 782; Butler v. Chi-
dence, see Thompson v. Brannin cago, etc. Co. (Iowa, 1893), 54 N. W.
(Ky., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 1057; Rep. 208; Illinois, etc. Co. v. Blye,
Huntsville v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co. 43 111. App. 612 ; Fisher v. Railroad
(Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 295; Wolf v. Co., 32 Oreg. 533; Brunker v. Gum-
Arthur (N. C, 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. mins (lud., 1893), 83 N. E. Rep. 733;
843; Stepp v. Nat. L. & Maturity Helton v. Alabama Midland Ry. Co.
Ass'n (S. C, 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 134; (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 376; Nosier v.
Johnson v. Crotty, 33 N. Y. S. 753 ; Chicago, B. & Q R. Co., 73 Iowa, 368 ;
Cogshall V. Roller Miller Co., 48 Louisville, etc. Co. v. Chaffin, 84
Kan. 480 ; Tenney v. Harvey, 63 Vt. Ga. 519 ; Louisville, E. & St. L. Cent
520. R. Co. V. Berry (Ind., 1894), 35 N. E.
1 Adams v. Main, 3 Ind. App. 232 ; Rep. 565 ; Mauer v. Ferguson, 17 N.
Langworthy v. Green, 88 Mich. 207 ; Y. S. 349 ; Bergquist v. Iron Co., 49
Penn. Coal Co. v. Friend (Ind., 1893), Minn. 511.
30 N. E. Rep. 1116. 3 See post, §§ 189, 194. See,, also,
2Yeaw V. Williams, 15 R. L 20; Pullman Pal. Car Co. v. Hawkins,
Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Thomp- 55 Fed. Rep. 932; Weber Wagon Co.
son (Tex., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 137; v. Kehl, 139 111. 644.
Cross T. Railroad Co., 69 Mich. 803;
§ 186.] EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE. 267
It is difficult at times to distinguish clearly whether a ques-
tion calls for an expression of opinion or for a statement of
fact from the witness. The form of the question or of the
answer is not always a reliable test. Thus, a witness may be
asked if he has any doubts concerning the facts of a transac-
tion to which he has testified, this question not calling for an
expression of opinion, but merely seeking to ascertain the
certainty of his knowledge.^ So, where a witness is unwilling
or unable to swear positively what any article was which he
has examined or tested — that is, if he cannot readily identify
it or classify it from a physical perception of its qualities, —
he may be asked what he thinks it was.^ If the witness,
through excess of caution, qualifies his replies by expressions
such as "it appears to me,'" "I think," "I believe," or "should
judge," his testimony, though perhaps weakened' thereby, is
not rendered incompetent. So far as his evidence contains
statements of relevant facts, it is admissible though thus qual-
ified.* On the other hand, a witness' statement that he does
not think a fact is true is not an opinion, for witnesses are
not always required to state facts with positiveness.* Testi-
mony showing the ownership^ or size of the subject of litiga-
tion,' or the time which elapsed between two events,^ or the
opinion of the witness that a writing read by him is true,' is
not objectionable as an expression of opinion. But the opin-
1 State V. Duncan (Mo., 1893), 23 ^Oslin v. Jerome, 93 Mich. 186;
S. W. Rep. 699; King v. Railroad Bass Fur. Co. v. Glasscock, 83 Ala.
Co., 73 Mo. 607. 433: Eotnack v. Hobbs (Ind., 1893),
2CoQi. V. Moinehan, 140 Mass. 463. 33 N. E. Eep. 807. "Duration, di-
3 People V. Fanshawe, 19 N. Y. S. mension, size, velocity, etc., are
865. often to be proved only by the opin-
* Abb. Brief on Facts, § 193, citing ion of witnesses, depending as they
Guiterman v. Steamship Co., 9 Daly do on minute circumstances which
(N. Y.), 119; Bradley V. Second Atc. cannot fully be detailed by wit-
R. R. Co., 8 id. 389; Callahan v. N. nesses." State v. Folwell, 14 Kan.
Y., Lake Erie & W. R. R., 103 N. Y. 205.
194; People v. Rolfe, 61 Cal. 540; « Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. 41;
State V. Babb, 76 Mo. 501 ; Rich v. State v. Casey, 44 La. Ann. 969.
Jones, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 836; Prior v. SFurton v. N. Y. Recorder, 23 N.
Diggs(Cal., 1893), 31 Pac. Rep.- 155. Y. S. 766; 3 Misc. Rep. 314; Lis-
5 Prior V. Diggs (Cal., 1893), 81 comb v. Agate. 23 N. Y. S. 126; 67
Pac. Rep. 155. Hun, 688.
BSlemer v. Tranum, IS S. Rep.
365.
268
EXPBET AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
e 186.
ion of the witness who is not an expert as to the meaning
of a sign, as the shaking of the head,' or of an outcry ,2 or
generally as to the probable cause or effect of a certain rele-
vant act,'' or as to the probable amount of time required for
its performance,* whether a witness could have heard a con-
versation,^ or a certain signal if it had been given,* whether
an accident was more likely to occur in one place than in an-
other,' or whether a certain act was prudent,' is inadmissible.
Though non-expert witnesses are usually confined to testi-
tying to facts, there are some cases where, from necessity,
their opinions are admissible upon matters of common knowl-
edge.' If the facts to which the witness is called to testify
are so numerous and of so peculiar a nature that they are
incapable of being specifically described so as to bring out
clearly their proper force and significance before the jury, the
witness may state his opinion as a short-hand characteriza'
tion of the facts." So where a witness had adequate means
1 Rollwagen v. Rollwagen, 3 Hun,
131 ; 63 N. Y. 504.
^Mesner v. People, 45 N. Y. li
'Gardaet' v. State (Ga„ 1893), 17
S. E. Rep. 86 ; Friedenwald v. Balti-
more, 74 Md. 116; 21 Atl. Rep. 555;
Kendriok v. Central R. R. Co., 89
Ga. 783; Middlebrook v. Zapp, 79
Tex. 331 ; Ireland v. Cincinnati, etc.
Co. (Mich., 1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 436;
People V. Rector, 19 Wend. 569;
Kansas, etc. Co. v. Scott, 1 Tex. Civ.
App. 1.
« Dowdy V. Georgia R. R. Co., 88
Ga. 736; Parrott v. Swaim, 29 111.
App. 266.
5 People V. Holf elder, 5 N. Y. Crim.
R. 179.
6 Eskridge v. Railroad Co., 89 Ky.
367; 13 S. W. Rep. 580; East Tenn.
etc. Co. V. Watson, 90 Ala. 41 ; 7 S.
Rep. 813.
' Toledo S. & S. etc. Co. v. Jackson
(111., 1893), 32 N. W. Rep. 793; Ivory
V. Town of Deer Park, 116 N. Y.
476; Belts v. Gloversville, 8 N. Y.
S. 795.
SMurtaugh v. N. Y. Cent & H.
R. R. Co., 49 Hun, 456.
9 Elliott V. Van Buren, 33 Mich.
49; People v. Monteith, 73 Cal. 7;
Davis V. State. 78 Ind. 15; Blake v.
People, 73 N. Y. 586; Yahn v. Ot-
tumwa, 33 Am. Law Reg. 644; Knoll
V. State, 55 Wis. 249 ; Baltimore v.
Lib. Tump. Co., 66 Md. 419; 7 Atl.
Rep. 805 ; Whittier v. Franklyn, 46
N. H. 23.
"Welch V. Miller, 33 III. App. 110;
State V. Miller, 53 Iowa, 84 ; Living-
ston V. Metro. R. R. Co., 18 N. Y. S.
203; Pike v. State, 49 N. H. 399;
Adams v. People, 63 N. Y. 621 ; Car-
ter V. Carter, 37 III. App. 319; 38 N.
E. Rep. 948; Com. v. Cunningham,
104 Mass. 545; Fuloher v. State, 28
Tex. App. 465 ; East Tenn. R. Co. v.
Watson, 90 Ala. 41; 7 S. Rep. 813;
Atchison R. Co. v. Miller, 18 Pac.
Rep. 486; 39 Kan. 419; B. & O. R.
R. Co. V. Ram bo, 59 Fed. Rep. 75;
Indianapolis v. HuflEer, 30 Ind. 235 ;
Chicago, etc. Co. v. George, 19 111.
510; Irish v. Smith, 8 S. & R. 573;
186.]
EXPEKT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
269
of observing a transaction, but where it is impossible for him
so to reproduce it as to enable any one hearing his descrip-
tion to form an intelligent conclusion from whai he is able
ts relate, the witness may, after stating the facts, be allowed
to state his own opinion or the conclusion he has formed from
the facts within his knowledge.' Thus, a witness may testify
to his understanding of a conversation;^ that, in his opinion,
a certain noise which was made by running water frightened
a horse ; '^ that a horse was gentle,* or appeared frightened '
or tired;' that a person's raanner in answering questions was
short;' that a man was at a certain date intoxicated^ or was
a person of intemperate habits; ^ that a person looked like a
white woman;'" that a man was destitute,*' or that he was
sober.'^ So any witness maytestify in court to the apparent
age '' or tO the identity of a person or thing seen by him out of
court."
State V. Babb, 76 Mo. 501 ; Alexan-
der V. Jonquil, 71 111. 366 ; Porter v.
Pequonnoc, 17 Conn. 349.
1 Taylor v. B. & O. R. Co., 10 8.
B. Rep. 29 ; 33 W. Va. 39 ; Caven-
dish V. Troy, 41 Vt. 99. "A variety
of circumstances that could only be
perceived, but not detailed, would
constitute the aggregate fron^ which
the opinion might be formed. The
person who had witnessed the trans-
action could alona form any idea of
the subject that could be relied on
with safety." Stewart v. State, 19
Ohio, 302.
2 Garvin v. Gates, 73 Wis. 513; 41
N. W. Rep. 621 ; Printup v. Mitchell,
17 Ga. 558. But he cannot testify
to the legal effect of what was said.
Ives V. Hamlen, 59 Mass. 534.
•■f Yahn v. Ottumwa, 60 Iowa, 429 ;
Whittier v. Franklin, 46 N. H. 23.
estate V. Avery, 44 N. H. 892;
Sydenham v. Beckwith, 43 Conn. 9.
5 Com. V. Sturtivant, 117 Mass.
133.
estate V. Ward, 17 Atl. Rep. 483
(Vt., 1889).
' Carroll v. State, 33 Ala. 28.
8 McKillop V. Duluth St. Ry. Co.
(Minn., 1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 739;
Cole V. Bean, 1 Ariz. 377 ; People v.
Monteith, 73 Cal. 7 ; People v. East-
wood, 14 N. Y. 563; Bradley v. Rail-
road Co., 8 Daly (N. Y.;, 289; Mc-
Carty v. Wells, 51 Hun, 171 ; Hamp-
Bon V. Taylor,' 15 R. I. 83; State v.
Pierce, 65 Iowa, 85 ; People v. O'Neil,
113 N. Y. 355.
» Gallagher v. People, 120 111. 179;
United Breth. M. Aid Ins. Co. v.
O'Hara, 130 Pa. St. 256; 13 Atl. Rep.
933; Gahaga;n v. Railroad Co., 1
lllen, 187; Smith v. State, 55 Ala.
1 ; Tatum v. State, 63 id. 150.
10 Hopkins v. Bowers, 111 N. C.
175; Moore V. State, 7 Tex. App. 608.
" Antanger v. Davis, 33 Ala. 70S.
12 People V. Packenham, 115 N. Y.
200.
13 Jones V. State (Tex., 1893), 23
W. Rep. 849; Carr v. State, 24 Tex.
App. 563 ; State v. Douglas, 48 Mo.
App. 39.
"Com. V. Sturtivant, 117 Mass.
113; State V. Horr (W. Va., 1893), 17
S. E. Rep. 794; Brotherton v. Peo-
ple, 75 N. Y. 159 ; State v. Dickson,
270 EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE. [§ 187.
Again, a non-expert witness may testify to the disposition of
a person, i. e., that he is unreliable;' that on certain occa-
sions he manifested hatred or anger,^ or affection,' towards
himself or some other person, or looked wild and excited,* or
sad,' or was happy and in good spirits.^ So, also, it is allow-
able for a non-expert to testify that in his opinion a culvert^
or a highway^ was or was not in good repair; that a trespass
was committed in an insulting manner;' that a blow, which
caused a physical injury, came from a certain direction;^" that
the weather was very cold; " that ill-feeling existed between
certain persons;'^ that a train was running at a specific rate of
speed," and that liquor which he had examined was intoxicat-
ing."
§ 187. Expert evidence, when admissible. — Where the
subject of investigation is such that persons who have not
made it a special study, or who have had no peculiar training
or experience in it, are incompetent to form accurate conclu-
sions or opinions regarding it, experts muy be called to state
their opinions to th^ jury. "Where the relation of facts to each
other, their connection with each other, and their results or
the conclusions which may be drawn from them, can be de-
termined without any prior special experience, study or skill,
the opinions of experts are inadmissible. So expert evidence
will not be received to show that a road is necessary;'' that
78 Mo. 438; People v. Eolfe, 61 Cal. WHopt v. Utah, 120 U. S. 430.
540; State V. Babb, 76 Mo. 501. "Curtis v. Chicago, etc. Co., 18
1 Mills V. Winter, 94 Ind. 329. Wis. 812.
2 State V. Edwards (N. C, 1893), 17 !'•' Polls; v. State, 62 Ala. 337.
S. E. Rep. 521 ; State v, Shelton, f 4 " Pence, v. Chicago, R. J. & P. Ry.
Iowa, 3:!3. Co. (Iowa, 1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 686;
3 McKee v. Nelson, 4 Cow. (N. T.) Com. v. Malone, 114 Mass. 295; State
355. V. Folwell, 14 Kan. 105. So it may
* Trav. Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 85 be shown by one witness that a train
Ga. 751. was running rapidly at a place not
5 Culver V. Dwight, 6 Gray, 444. too remote from the point in issue,
« State V. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1. and by another witness that its speed
' Lund V. Lynsborough, 9 Cush. was not subsequently reduced.
(Mass.) 30. Louisville, New Albany, etc. Co. v.
8 Clinton v. Howard, 43 Conn. 394 ; Jones, 108 Ind. 55.
Bait. & Lib. Turnp. Co. v. Cassell, "Com. v. Donlican, 114 Mass. 257;
66 Md. 419; Alexander v. Mt. Ster- State v. Miller, 53 Iowa, 84.
ling, 71 111. 366. i» Burwell v. Speed, 101 N. C. 118;
9 Raisler v. Springer, 38 Ala, 703. 10 S. E. Rep. 152.
§ 188.] EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE. 271
the condition of machinery might necessitate an examination ;
how much bark or wood will shrink;'' or to explain the injury
which has been done to property by smoke, noise and stench
caused by the running of a railroad,' as such matters are
usually within common experience.
The expert witness need not know personally anything of
the facts of the particular case, though perhaps his evidence
would be of higher value if he could testify of his own knowl-
edge as well as state his opinion upon facts in a hypothetical
question which are assumed to be proved. It must appear,
however, from his previous experience and study, or from his
business or professional avocation, that he is qualified to an-
swer the question more accurately than is a person who may
not have been called upon to study the subject or to obtain or
exercise any skill in it.*
§ 1 88. Competency and examination of experts. — "Whether
a witness is qualified to testify as an expert is always a ques-
tion for the court,* and his competency and title to act as an
expert must be shown before his opinion is admissible.^ It is
1 Goodsell V. Taylor, 41 Minn. 307. Nelson v. M. Ins. Co., 71 N. T.
2 Brown v. Doubleday, 61 Vt. 533 ; 453 ; Broquet v. Tripp, 36 Kan. 700 ;
7 Atl. Rep. 135. Wright v. Williams, 47 Vt. 333 ; Dole
'Thompson v. Penn. R. Co., 15 v. Johnson, 50 N. Y. 453; Flynt v.
Atl. Rep. 833 ; 51 N. J. L. 43. Bodenhamer, 80 N. C. 305 ; Santa
4 0verby V. C. & O. R. R. Co., 37 Clara v. Enright, 95 Cal. 105; Per-
W. Va. 534 ; Lawrence V. Myrieman ' kins v. Stickney, 133 Mass. 817;
Marble Co., 1 Misc. Rep. 105; St. Gates v. Chicago, etc, Co., 44 Mo.
Louis, I. M. & S. Co. V. Lyman (Ark., App. 488; People v. Levy, 71 Cal.
1893), S3 S. W. Rep. 170; Alabama 618; Chateaugay O. & L Co. v.
Coal Co. V. Pitts (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Blake, 144 U. S. 476. See ante,
Rep. 35; Muldowney v. 111. Cent. R. g§ 11, iS.
Co., 36 Iowa, 473; American En. » People v. Millard, 5 Crira. L.
Tile Co. V. Reich, 13 N. Y. S. 937; Mag. 588; Russell v, Crittenden, 53
Litton M. Wright, 1 Ind. App. 93; Conn. .564; Half v. Curtis, 68 Tex.
27 N. E. Rep. 339; In re Thompson, 640; 5 S. W. Eep. 541; Stennett v.
58 Hun, 608; Perry v. Jensen, 31 Penn. Ins. Co., 68 Iowa, 674; Ft.
Atl. Rep. 866; 38 W. N. C. 136; Wayne v. Coombs, 107 Ind. 75;
People V. McQuaid, 85 Mich. 133 ; 48 Forbes v. Howard, 4 R. I. 364 ; Penn-
N. W. Rep. 161 ; Rochester, etc. Co. sylvania Co. v. Swan, 37 111. App.
V. Budlong, 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 389 ; 83 ; McCormick M. Co. v. Burandt,
Kennedy v. People, 39 N. Y. 345. 37 id. 588. Of. Taft v. Com. i
5 McEwen v. Biglow, 40 Mich. 215 ; 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 1046.
272
EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
[§ 188.
not always essential that the witness should expressly claim
to be an expert.' It is usually enough if his competency ap-
pears prima facie, and if, on cross-examination, his utter lack
of qualification as an expert is shown, the jury should be in-
structed to reject his evidence altogether.^
A hypothetical qaestion in which are contained the facts
which are proved or claimed to be proved by either side may
be put to the expert for the purpose of obtaining his opinion.'
The facts embodied in the hypothetical question need not be
absolutely proved or admitted.* If there is any evidence
which tends to prove the facts, it is proper to allow the coun-
sel for either party to base a hypothetical question upon them,
leaving it to the jury to decide ultimately whether the facts
as stated are true.
The term "hypothetical" implies that the truth of some
statement of fact is assumed for a particular purpose; and if
such a question could be based upon undisputed facts alone,
it would never be asked in any case where an issue of fact
1 Mercer v. Vose, 40 N. Y. Super.
Ct. 318.
2 Davis V. State, 35 Ind, 496 ; Peo-
ple V. Marseilles, 70 Cal. 98 ; Eedell v.
Railroad Co., 44 N. Y. 367 ; Washing-
ton V. Cole, 6 Ala. 213; Perkins v.
State, 133 Mass. 217; Sarle v. Ar-
nold, 7 E. I. 583. If a witness is '
competent as an expert on a ques-
tion relating to a particular business
or profession, the fact that he has
abandoned it and is now engaged in
something else is not a valid objec-
tion to his competency. Abbott,
Brief on the Facts, § 580 ; Bearss v.
Copley, 10 N. Y. 93; Robertson v.
Knapp, 35 N. Y. 91; 33 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 309. In deciding upon the
competency of a witness to speak as
an expert, the court may examine
other witnesses for the purpose of
aiding it in deteruiining whether the
alleged expert has the proper qualifi-
cations from experience or otherwise
to give an opinion as to the matter,
or in the trade or profession in rela-
tion to which he was examined.
Rogers, Exp. Test., S 17; Lawson,
Exp. Ev. 236. In such a case the
witness who is examined as to the
qualification of the expert does not
give an opinion as to the value of
the testimony, i. e., its credibility
and weight, which are for the jury
exclusively, but merely testifies that
the expert posseses, in his opinion,
sufficient experience and knowledge
to entitle him to testify as such.
Laras v. Com., 84 Pa. St. 208; Bueh-
ler V. Reich, 18 N. Y. S. 115. Cf. con-
tra, Association v. Ci-onin, 4 Allen,
141.
3 People v. Harris, 186 N. Y. 433;
Strong V. Stevens, 63 Wis. 255; Dex-
ter V. Hall, 15 Wall. 9.
4 Hall V. Rankin (Iowa, 1898), ^54
N. W. Rep. 317.
§ 188.].
EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
273
arose.^ The question should not be based on conjecture," or
upon the opinions of other experts who have testified,' nor
should it contain conclusions and inf^erences, which are for the
jury ; * but if it state and assume the material facts,' the hypo-
thetical question need not state all facts of which any evidence
has been given.^ It is always objectionable to put lengthy
hypothetical questions, containing numerous facts which re-
quire the witness to 'determine whether they have or have
not been proved,' or which are so prolix that neither he nor
the jury can remember or consider what they contain.*
1 Cowley V. People, 83 N. Y. 464;
DiUeber v. Home L. Ins. Co., 87
N. Y. 79; Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind.
530; Page v. State, 61 Ala. 16;
Yardley v. Cuthbertson, 108 Pa. St.
395 ; Quinn v. Higgins, 63 Wis. 084 ;
Deig V. Morehead, 110_ Ind. 451 ; 11
N. E. Eep. 458 ; Boardman v. Wood-
man, 47 N. H. 120; Dexter v. Hall,
15 Wall. 9; State v. Cross, 68 Iowa,
180 ; People v. Augsburg, 97 N. Y.
601; Forsyth v. Doolittle, 120 U. S.
73; Morrill v. Tegardeu, 19 Neb.
584; Ray v. Ray, 98 N. C. 566; Fos-
tei's Ex'r v. Dickerson (Vt., 1893), 24
Atl. Rep. 353 ; Senn v. Southern Ry.
Co., 18 S. W. Rep. 1007; Carpenter
V. Bailey, 94 Cal. 406 ; Russ v. Wa-
bash W. Ry. Co., 113 Mo. 45; Will-
iams v. Brown, 28 Ohio St. 158.
2 Prentis v. Bates, 88 Mich. 567 ;
Higbie v. Guardian, etc. Co., 53
N. Y. 63.
3 Link V. Sheldon, 136 N. Y. 1 ;
In re Lyddy's Will, 3 N. Y. S. 636.
i Haish V. Payson, 107 111. 865.
estate V. Hanley, 34 Minn. 480;
Vosburgh v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523;
Thompson v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.,
6 N. Y. S. 7; Covey v. Campbell, 52
Ind. 158. He should be asked to
express his opinion upon certain
facts specifically stated and assumed
to be established, leaving it to the
jury to find whether'the facts thus
assumed are true. Woodbury v.
18
Obear, 7 Gray (Mass.), 467. "An
expert may be asked his opinion
upon a case hypothetically stated, or
upon a case in which the facts have
been established; but he may not
determine from the evidence what
the facts are to give an opinion
upon them.'' Dexter v. Hall, 15
Wall. 9, 3^.
6 Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550;
Baker v. State, 30 Fla. 41 ; Bowen
v. Huntington, 85 W. Va. 683; Fort
Worth, etc. Co. v. Greathouse, 83
Tex. 104.
f Stoddard v. Town, 32 N. E. Rep.
948.
8 People V. Brown, 53 Mich. 531;
Briggs V. Minn. S. R. Co. (Minn.,
1893), 58 N. W. Rep. 1019; Prentis
V. Bates, 88 Mich. 567. An objection
to the length of a question may be
avoided by putting it to the expert
in writing (Jones v. President, etc.
Portland, 88 Mich. 598. See Barton
V. Govan, 116 N. Y. 658), and the
court may, in its discretion, require
this to be done. Mayo v. Wright,
63 Mich. 83. The, length of a hypo-
thetical question is never ground
for its exclusion, being a matter
discretionary with th? court, unless
it is shown the jurors were con-
fused and that they failed to under-
stand it. Forsyth v. Doolittle, 130
U. S. 73 ; Mayo v. Wright, supra.
274
EXPERT AND OPINIOX EVIDEKOE.
[§ 188,
Though hypothetical questions constitute the best, and ia
some states the only ,^ method of ascertaining the opinion of
an expert, it has been held that he may be asked to give an
opinion upon the evidence if he has heard or read it,^ and as-
suming it to be true,' or he may give an opinion based upon his
own personal knowledge gained by observation and examina-
tion of an injured person or of the subject-matter of the ac-
tion.* If, however, the evidence is very voluminous,* or con-
flicting,^ this method would be objectionable, if not improper,
as usurping the office of the jury.'
In the cross-examination of experts much latitude is al-
lowed. So while, on the direct examination, no hypothetical
question is admissible which is not within the general range
of the evidence, or which assumes the truth of facts which
are wholly unsupported b}'' any evidence,' when the expert is
cross-examined he may be questioned to ascertain his skill or
experience on subjects material to the inquiry, though the
facts which are assumed in the questions may not have been
contained in the evidence.'
1 McCarthy v. Com. (Ky., 1893), 20
S. W. Eep. 239 ; State v. Maier, 36
W. Va. 757; Reynolds v. Robinson,
64 N. Y. 389; In re Snelling, 136
N. Y. 515.
2 Gilman v. Stafford, 50 Vt. 738.
3 Sillar V. Brown, 9 C. & P. 601 ;
Com. T. Rogers, 7 Met. (Mass.) 500;
Jones V. Chicago, etc. Co., 43 Minn.
279; Hunt v. Lowell Gas Co., 8
Allen (Mass.), 170.
* State T. Leabo, 89 Mo. 247;
Coyne v. Man. R. Co., 62 Hun, 620.
Contra, Fuller v. Jackson, 93 Mich.
197. See post, % 189.
5 Bennett v. State, 57 "Wis. 69.
•"Guiterman v. Liverpool, etc. Co.,
83 N. Y. 358 ; Bait. & Lib. Co. v,
Cassell, 66 Md. 419; Yardley v.
Cuthbertson, 108 Pa. St. 395; Fair-
child V. Bascomb, 35 Vt. 308, 415 ;
Page V. State, 61 Ala. 16.
■ Gregory v. New York, L. E. etc.
Co., 55 Hun, 303.
8 State V. Cross, 68 Iowa, 180 ; Peo-
ple V. Augsburg, 97 N. Y. 501.
9 Dilleber v. Home L. Ins. Co., 87
N. Y. 79; People v. Augsburg, 97
N. Y. 501; Louisville R. Co. v.
Falvey, 104 Ind. 409 ; Kelly v. Erie
Tel. Co. , 34 Minn., 331 ; Epps v. State,
102 Ind. 539; Brown v. Insurance
Co., 70 Iowa, 390; Hart v. Hudson
R. B. Co., 84 N. Y. 56; Foster's Ex'r
V. Dickerson, 64 Vt. 233; 34 Atl.
Rep. 353. An expert may give an
opinion upon the skill of another ex-
pert who has testified to show the
value of his evidence. Thompson v.
Ish (Mo., 1889), 13 S. W. Rep. 510.
As to the extent and efiBcacy of cross-
examination to test the knowledge
of a witness and the credibility of
his evidence, see post, §§ 339-343.
The court should not permit the ex-
pert to be asked on cross-examina-
tion what is the amount of his an-
nual professional income with a
§ 189.]
EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
2Y5
§189. Cross-examination of experts — Use of scientific
boolis. — "While the current of the most recent decisions, in
the absence of statute permitting it,' is against allowing scien-
tific treatises to be read as furnishing direct evidence them-
selves of the opinions and facts which they contain, or as
supplementary to and illustrating the oral evidence of the ex-
pert,^ yet a particular scientific publication ma3' be read to
contradict the evidence of an expert where his opinion, as it
was given on h-is direct-examination, is stated to be based upon
that work;' or it may be read to impeach him by showing
that he quoted it incorrectly.* The rule that scientific publi-
cations are not admissible in evidence does not of course pre-
vent their use as a means of ascertaining the learning and
competency of the expert. They may be referred to on cross-
examination, and the expert may be asked if he has read
them; if he agrees with the conclusions of their authors; and
questions based upon their contents may be asked him."
view to ascertaining his professional
standing. Harland v, Lilienthal, 53
N. Y. 438.
iCode Iowa, § 3653. See, also,
Burg V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Co.
(Iowa, 1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 680.
2 People V. Goldenson, 76 Cal. 838;
Com. V. Brown, 131 Mass. 70; In re
Sheldon, 18 N. Y. S. 15; State v.
O'Brien, 7 R. I. 336; Bloomington
V, Schrock, 110 III. 231; Mix v.
Staples, 63 Hun, 631 ; Huffman v.
Click, 77 N. C. 55. See, also, § 145.
"The reasons for not admitting sci-
entific works to prove the statements
which they contain are that the au-
thors did not write under oath, and
their grounds of belief and process
of reasoning cannot be tested by
cross-examination. But an expert's
opinion, formed in part from read-
ing treatises written by persons of
acknowledged ability, may be given
in evidence, and he (the expert) may
refresh his own recollection by ref-
erence to such authorities." By the
court, in State v. Baldwin, 36 Kan.
17, 18. See, also, Marshall v. Brown,
50 Mich. 148; Boyle v. State, 57 "Wis.
472, 478; People v. Vanderhoof
(Mich., 1888), 39 N. W. Rep. 28.
Thus, herd-books will be rejected
where the question of the breed of
animals is in issue (Crawford v.
Williams, 48 Iowa, 249), unless they
are shown to be accepted and re-
ceived as standard and well-recog-
nized authorities. In such a case
they may perhaps be used to refresh
the memory of an expert on the
witness stand. Kuhns v. Chicago,
etc. Co., 65 Iowa, 538; 23 N. W. Rep.
661 ; Townley v. Missouri Pac. R.
Co., 89 Mo. 31.
3 Pinney v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584 ;
People V. Goldenson, 76 Cal. 328 ;
Conn. L. Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 89 111. 516.
iRipon v. Bittel, 30 Wis. 614.
S'Hess V. Lowrey, 123 Ind. 233;
State V. Wood, 53 N. H. 484 ; Tomp-
kins V. West, 56 Conn. 585,
2Y6 EXPBET AND OPINION EVIDENOB. [§ 190.
§ 190. The weight and credibility of expert and opinion
evidence. — The credibility and weight of expert and opinion
evidence are for the jury exclusively,^ and they are not re-
quired to give any greater weight to it than to other evi-
dence,^ and of course are not bound by it if they disbelieve it.^
It has been held error for the court to discredit expert evi-
dence * by instructing a jury that it should be regarded with
caution,' that its value was not great,^ or that less weight
should be given to the evidence of an expert whose experience
was limited '' than to that of one of greater experience. On the
other hand, it has been held not improper for the court to de-
clare that this evidence is of the lowest order; that it is the
least satisfactory, and should not be permitted to overthrow
positive and credible evidence of credible witnesses who testify
of their own knowledge.' These diverse views may perhaps
be reconciled by remembering that expert evideuce has for
its peculiar province matter of opinion, and facts pertaining
to subjects not within the scope of common knowledge. "Within
these limits the evidence of an expert possesses very great
weight. If while testifying to such facts and opinions he
shall also testif}' to matters of> common knowledge, his char-
acter as an expert does not render his testimony as to those
matters more credible than the testimony of any other person,
while the fact that he is paid to testify casts a certain amount
of discredit upon whatever he may ssi.y.^
iHead v. Hargrave, 105 U. S. 45; It is not error for the court to omit
Gregor v. Annell, 3 Iowa, 30; Epps to inform the jury that a witness is
V. State, 102 Ind. 529 ; State v. Cole, an expert where it has charged them
63 Iowa, 695. See ante, g§ 11, 13. A as to what is expert testimony,
physician's neglect to call a surgeon Faulkner v. Faulkner, 84 Ga, 73.
to perform an operation which he * Stone v. Chicago, etc. Co. (Mich.),
was himself unable to undertake 33 N. W. Eep. 24.
should not be permitted to affect ^ Eggers v. Eggers, 57 Ind. 461,
his credibility as an expert witness. '' Cuneo v. Bessoni, 63 Ind. 534.
Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill, 93 8 United States v. Pendergast, 33
Ala. 514. Fed. Rep. 198; Winans v. Railroad
2 Sanders v. State, 94 Ind. 147; Co., 31 How. (U. S.) 101; Tracy
TurnbuU v. Richardson, 37 N. W. Peerage Case, 10 C. & F. 191 ; People
Rep. 499; 69 Mioh. 400. * v. Ferryman (Mich., 1888), 40 N. W.
3 State V. Malloy, 31 Fed. Rep. 19 ; Rep. 425 ; Whitaker v. Parks, 43
Humphries v. Johnson, 20 Ind. 190; Iowa, 58G.
Olson V. Gyertsen, 43 Minn. 407. ^ St. Louis Gas Co. v. American
<Langford v. Jones, 18 Oreg. 307. F. I, Co., 33 Mo. App. 348.
§ 191-J
EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
277
§191. Compensation of experts. — An expert witness,
called tp testify to his opinion, is entitled to compensatior.
orer and above the fees allowed other witnesses by law; and
it has been held that a district attorney, in employing expert
witnesses to testify at a criminal trial, has, by implication,
the authority to bind the county to pay a stipulated and spe-
cific sum as fees.^ If he refuse to testify unless his fee is paid,
he cannot be committed for contempt. But he may be in con-
tempt where he refuses to answer questions which call for
knowledge which he has acquired, not by his professional
reading or experience, but by means open to any one — that
is, by personal observation.^ The compensation of an expert
cannot, in the absence of statute, be taxed as costs.'
1 People V. Board of Supervisors of
Cortland Co., 15 N. T. S. 748; Peo-
ple V. Board of Columbia Co., 31
N. E. Rep. 333; 134 N. Y. 1.
2 State V. Teipner, 36 Minn. 535 ;
Buchman v. State, 59 Ind. 1 ; United
States V. Howe, 13 Cent. L. J. 193;
People V. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr.
(N. S.) 207, 240; Parkinson v. Atkin-
son, 31 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 199; Dills
V. State, 59 Ind. 15. In Ex parte
Dement, 53 Ala. 389, and Summer
V. State, 5 Tex. App. 365, the right
to extra compensation was denied.
See, also, the remarks of Marie, J.,
in Webb v. Page, 1 Carr. & K. 23.
3 Mask V. Buffalo (N. Y., 1893), 13
N. E. Rep. 251 ; Haynes v. Mosher,
15 How. Pr. 216 ; Branfoot v. Ham-
ilton, 53 Fed, Rep. 390; 3 C. C. A.
155. Upon the controverted ques-
tion whether a witness called as
an expert can be punished for con-
tempt in refusing to testify until his
fees as a professional expert witness
are paid, the following considera-
tions have been urged :
As sustaining the pi-oposition that
experts can be coerced into testify-
ing without extra compensation, it
is said that it is a duty that an ex-
pert, particularly if he belong to one
of the learned professions, owes to
the law which protects him in the
practice of his calling; that he,
equally with all citizens, ought to
contribute his aid from the necessity
of the case and to seeyjre and ad-
vance the proper administration of
justice ; and that the receipt of large
sums as compensation is likely to
bias the witness and to lessen, if not
wholly to destroy, the value of his
testimony as a guide to truth.
In answer to these arguments it is
urged that, while a physician or
other expert ought to testify to those
facts within his knowledge which
he has acquired by the means that
are open to the ordinary witness
without extra pay, yet, when giving
a professional opinion on the witness
stand, he is employing professional
qualifications which it has taken
him years of study to obtain, and
that to compel him to divulge his
opinion gratis is an unjust appro-
priation of his property without com-
pensation.
Speaking of medical experts — and
the same principles will apply to ex-
perts of any sort — Mr. John Ordro-
naux, in Medical Jurisprudence, par.
114, 115, says: "But once put upon
278
EXPERT ANP OPINION EVIDENCE.
[§ 192.
§ 192. Physicians as experts — Cause of death. — A med-
ical witness may, if called as an expert, express his opinion as
to the health of a person founded on an examination,^ or upon
the facts as stated in a hypothetical question put to him in
court. But a ph3'sician called to testify, not as an expert, but
in the capacity of an ordinary witness testifying to facts ob-
vious to all, cannot on cross-examination testify as an expert.^
If his opinion is founded upon a physical examination of the
person, he may be guided in part by statements made to him
by the patient so far as they are not merely narrative of past
symptoms or transactions.' The opinion of a physician or a
surgeon upon the cause, nature and effect of wounds or other
physical injuries is always admissible.* He may testify to the
the stand as a skilled witness, his
obligations to the public now cease,
and he stands in the position of any
professional man consulted in rela-
tion to a subject on which his opin-
ion is sought. It is evident that the
skill and professional experience of
a man are so far his individual cap-
ital and property that he cannot be
compelled to bestow them gratui-
tously on any party ; neither the pub-
lic any more than any private person
have a right to extort services from
him in the line of his profession
without adequate compensation. On
the witness stand, precisely as in his
oflBce, his opinion may be given or
withheld at pleasure; for a skilled
witness cannot be compelled to give
an opinion, nor be committed for
contempt if he refuses to do so."
' Louisville, etc. Co, v. Falvey, 104
Ind. 409.
2 Enos v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins.
Co. (S. D., 1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 919.
3 Johnson v. N. Pac. E. Co., 47
Minn. 430; Kansas City, etc. Co. v.
Stoner, 51 Fed. Rep. 649; 3 C. C. A.
437; Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen
(Mass.), 823; Towle v. Blake, 48
N. H. 92; Coyne v. Railroad Co., 63
Hun, 630; Quaife v, Chicago, etc.
Co., 48 Wis. 513; Eckles v. Bates, 26
Ala. 655 ; State v. Gedicke, 43 N. J.
L. 86^ Illinois C. R. Co. v. Sutton,
43 111. 438. " A physician cannot be
permitted to decide on the credibil-
ity of witnesses nor to take into con-
sideration facts known to him and
not to the jury; but, after having
communicated such facts in his tes-
timony, he may take them into con-
sidei'ation in forming his opinion."
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Falvey, 104
Ind. 409.
* Fay V. Swan, 44 Mich. 544 ; Rob-
inson V. Marino, 3 Wash. St. 434;
Bowen v. Huntington, 85 W. Ya.
683; Atchison, etc. Co. v. Brassfield
(Kan., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 814;
Graves v. Battle Creek (Mich., 1893),
64 N. W. Rep. 757; Reed v. Penn.
R. Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 184. But an
opinion that on an unusual exposure
or a change in the weather some
pain may be suffered is inadmissi-
ble, as too speculative. Elsas v.
Second Ave. R. R. Co., 56 Hun, 161.
On the other hand, in Bliss v. New
York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (Mass.,
1894), 36 N. E. Rep. 65, it was held
that a medical expert might testify
not only to the probable but to
the " possible " immediate effect of
§ 192.] •
EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
279
manner in which in his opinion the injury was inflicted,' and
where he has stated that it was caused by a certain weapon
or implement, he may in a criminal trial be shown an instru-
ment which has been proved to have been in the defendant's
hand, and may be asked if it would have caused the wound
or injury.^ An expert physician may be asked what would
be the effect of a certain blow or other injury and whether a
person would be likely to recover therefrom,^ the length of
time the injured person may live,* and whether death would
ensue.^ A physician, after having described the symptoms
which have been observed by him, may give an opinion as to
their probable cause" and as to the nature and curability' of
the disease from which the person is suffering.' A physician
is a qualified witness upon the probable cause producing
a nervous shock which plaintiff
claimed he had received;
1 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Burnett
^Tex., 1891), 16 S. W. Rep. 330 ; State
V. Ginger, 80 Iowa, 574; Rash v.
State, 61 Ala. 89 ; Doolittle v. State,
93 Ind.' 272; Boyle v. State, 61 Wis.
349. Cf. Wabash W. R. Co. v.
Friedman, 41 111. App. 270; Egler v.
People,' 58 N. Y. 642; Gas Co. v.
O'Brien, 118111. 174; Boyd v. State,
14 Lea (Tenn.), 161 ; Comin v. Piper,
120 Mass. 188; State v. Clark, 15
a C. 103; Chicago R. R. v. Lambert,
119 111. 255.
2 Kennedy V. People, 39 N. Y. 245 ;
People V. Carpenter, 103 id. 238.
3Ney V. Troy, 3 N. Y. S. 679;
Strohm v. Railroad Co., 96 N. Y.
305; Cunningham v. Railroad Co.,
49 Fed. Rep. 39; Reed v. Penn. R.
R. Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 184; Denver
Tramway Co. v. Reid (Colo., 1894),
35 Pac. Rep. 269;' King v. Second
Ave. R. R. Co., 86 N. Y. S. 973.
«Alberti v. N. Y., L. B. & N. R.
R. Co., 118 N. Y. 77; Armstrong v.
Aokley, 71 Iowa, 76; 33 N. W. Rep.
180; People v. Wilson, 109 N. Y. 345,
'Coyne v, Manhattan Ry. Co., 62
Hun, 620; Reed v. Penn. Ry. Co.,
56 Fed. Rep. 184; Davis v State, 38
Md. 15; State v. Crenshaw, 33 La.
Ann. 406 ; Armstrong v. Ackley, 71
Iowa, 76; Manufac. Ace. Ind. Co, v.
Dorgan, 58 Fed. Rep. 94; Griswold
V. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 115 N. Y.
61 ; Johnson v. Broadway R. R. Co.,
6 N. Y. S. 112.
*Van Deusen v. Newcomer, 40
Mich. 120; Louisville, etc. Co. v.
Falvey, 104 Ind. 409; Robinson v.
Marino, 3 Wash. 434; Bowen v.
Huntington, 35 W. Va. 683.
'Matteson v. N. Y. etc. R. Co.,
35 N. Y. 487. See cases in note 3.
8 Jones V. White, 11 Humph,
(Tenn.) 268; Flynt v. Bodenhamer,
80 N. O. 205; Polk v. State, 36 Ark.
117; Hook V. Stovell, 26 Ga. 704;
Baltimore & Lib. Turn. Co. v. Cas-
sell, 66 Md. 419; Cooper v. State, 23
Tex. 336 ; Linton v. Hurley, 14 Gray
(Mass.), 191; Pidcock v. Potter, 68
Pa. St. 342;, Burns v. Barenfeld, 84
Ind. 43.
280 EXPBKT AND OPINION EVIDENCE, ' [§ 19S.
{
death,^ and he may state when, in his opinion, death took
place-^ and by what weapons or instruments it was caused.'
§ 193. Evidence of medical experts to show character of
disease and blood-stains — Expert evidence as to autopsies
and malpractice. — Medical testimony is generally admissible
to show the ordinary duration and character of a disease,^ its
cause and the proper reraedj'^,^ whether it is contagious,* and
whether its recurrence is probable.'' So a physician may give
his opinion that the party is not simulating disease.^ The
testimony of a physician otherwise competent who conducted
an autopsy is not inadmissible because minor statutory de-
tails were not observed by him.^ He may give his opinion as
to what tests were needed to ascertain the cause of death.
Where several physicians hold an autopsy, the evidence of
any one of them is competent to show a fact observed by any
of the others at the autopsy."* But an expert witness, it has
been held, cannot be permitted to testify merely from hearing
the evidence that an autopsy was or was not so conducted
that the cause of death could be stated with any degree of
certainty." So a physician may give his opinion of the sex
of a person, based upon an examination which he has 'made
of a skeleton,*^ and he may testify generally as to the cause of
1 Boyle V. State, 61 Wis. 349 ; Com. N. C. 205 ; Baltimore v. Lib. Turn'
V. Thompson (Mass., 1893), 33 N. E. Co., 66 Md. 419; Pidcock v. Potter,
Rep. 1111; Bggle v. People, 56 N. Y. 68 Pa. St. 344; Matteson v. Railroad
64; People v. Sessions, 58 Mich. 594. Co., 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 364; Armstrong
2 State V. Clark, 15 S. C. 403. v. Ackley, 71 Iowa, 76; Cooper v.
3 Waite V. State, 13 Tex. App. 169 ; State, 33 Tex. 336 ; Jones v. Tucker,
Banks v. State, id. 183; Manufg. 41 N. H. 546.
Ace. Indemnity Co. v. Dorgan, 58 « Moore v. State, 17 Ohio St. 331.
Fed. Rep. 945. 'Filer v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., 49
i Finnegan v. Fall Riv. Gas Works N. Y. 43. •
(Mass., 1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 523; SRailroad v. Martin, 112 111. 16.
Linton v. Hurley, 14 Gray (Mass.), Contra, Cqle v. Lake Shore, etc.
191 ; Washington v. Cole, 6 Ala. 312 ; Co. (Mich., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep.
Jones V. White, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 638.
268; Powell y. Railroad Co., 77 Ga. ^Com. v. Taylor, 133 Mass. 361.
193 ; Willey v. Portsmouth, 35 N. H. lo People v. Wilson, 109 N. Y. 345.
^^^- 11 Manufacturers' Ace. Ind. Co, v,
5 Anthony v. Smith, 4 Bosw. (N. Dorgan, 58 Fed. Rep. 945.
Y.) 503; Flynt v. Bodenhamer, 80 12 Wilson v. State, 41 Tex. 330.
§ 193.]
EXPERT AND OPINION EVJDENCE.
281
the condition in which a body is found after death* or burial.^
As all persons are more or less familiar with the appearance
of stains caused by human blood, it has been repeatedly held
that an ordinary witness may testify that certain stains re-
semble those made by human and animal blood. No peculiar
skill or experience is necessary to be possessed by the witness,^
though if he is an expert physician or microscopist his testi-
mony upon this subject may be more worthy of consideration
and belief by the jury.*
The opinions of medical experts are admissible in actions
to recover damages for malpractice committed by physicians
and surgeons to show whether the plaintiff was or was not
properly treated.' But such evidence is not received to show
the general reputation of the defendant for skill,* or that he
procured his diploma by irregular methods,' or to show the
1 State V. Pike, 65 Me. Ill; O'Mara
V. Com., 75 Pa. St. 434.
2 State V. Secrest, 80 N. C. 450.
5 People V. Gonzalez, 35 N. Y. 49 ;
Thomas v. State, 67 Ga. 460; Mc-
Lain v. Com., 99 Pa. St. 86; Wool-
folk v. State, 85 Ga. 69; People v.
Greenfield, 30 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 463; 85
N. Y. 75, 83; Dillard v. State, 58
Miss. 868; People v. Deacons, 109
N. Y. 874
*Com. V. Sturtivant, 117 Mass.
123; Knoll v. State, 55 "Wis. 249;
State V. Knight, 43 Me. 1, Only ex-
perts should be allowed to testify
whether a certain stain was caused
by animal or human blood. Lindsay
V. People, 6 N. Y. 143. It is af-
firmed by many microsoopists that
it is an easy matter to distinguish
human blood by the size and shape
of the corpuscles. The more recent
and perhaps better opinion is that
" while a skilful expert can with cer-
tainty distinguish between human
blood corpuscles and those of the
blood of a cow, pig or other domestic
animals with which it would be
likely to be confounded, still in a
murder trial, where human life is at
stake, the expert is hardly warranted
to swear that the blood-stain is any-
thing more than that of a mammal."
Citing Communication of John J.
Eeese in Med. Leg. Jour., Sept.,
1893. See Reese, Med. Jurisprudence,
p. 133 (3d ed.), 1889.
sSpaulding v. Bliss, 83 Mich. 311;
Boyston v. Giltner, 3 Greg. 118;
Wright V. Hardy, 33 Wis. 348 ; Quinn
V. Higgins, 63 Wis. 664; Eeber v.
Herring, 115 Pa. St. 599; 8 Atl. Rep.
800 ; Mertz v. Detweiler, 8 W. & S.
(Pa.) 376; Kay v. Thomson, 10 Am.
L. Reg. (N. B.) 594; Bennison v.
Walbank, 38 Minn. 813; Gates v.
Fleischer, 67 Wis. 504 ; 30 N. W. Rep.
674; Williams v. Poppleton, 3 Greg.
189; Van Hoover v. Berghoff, 90
Mo. 487 ; Roberts v. Johnson, 58 N.
Y. 613.
* Stevenson v, Gelsthorpe, 10 Mont.
503; Boydston v. Giltner, supra;
Gramm v. Boener, 56 Ind. 497;
Leighton v. Sargent, 11 Post. (N. H.)
130.
7 Bute v. Potts, 18Pac. Rep. 329;
76 Cal. 304.
282
EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
[§ 19i.
professional standing of the medical college at which he stud-
ied.^ The witness may be aslied if the death of the patient
could be attributed to the unsliilfulness or negligence of the
defendant,^ and he may give his opinion upon the properties
and effect of the medicine or other means employed,' or ma}'-
state the customary and proper practice in similar cases.* '
§ 194. Non-expert evidence upon a person's physical con-
dition.— A witness who, though he is not an expert, has had
adequate opportunities for observation, may testify to all
facts within his knowledge concerning the physical condition
of a person, where such facts do not presuppose the possession
of any special scientific or medical experience or training on
his part;* as, for example, to the fact that a person's leg was
broken,' or that he was unconscious on a certain date.' So
the evidence of a non-expert witness is admissible, though it
may consist merely of an opinion, that a person seemed to be
in good health or suffering from illness,* as to the extent of
the illness,' or that a person who had been ill had grown
better or worse." But where a witness has testified that a
1 Leighton v. Sargent, 11 Fost. (N.
H.) 120.
2 Wright V. Hardy, 22 Wis. 348.
» Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen, 322;
Mertz V. Detweiler, 8 W. & S. (Pa.)
376.
<Twombly v. Leach, 11 Cush.
(Mass.) 405; Doyle v. Eye & Ear In-
firmary, 80 N. Y. 601. Of. Link v.
Sheldon, 18 N. Y. S. 815; Gates v.
Fleischer, 67 Wis. 504; 30 N. W.
Rep. 674.
5 Fox V. Penin. W. L. & Color
Works, 92 Mich, 243 ; Rawls v. Am.
Mut. L. Ins. Co., 27 N. Y. 282; Rash
V. State, 61 Ala. 89 ; Smalley v. Ap-
pleton, 70 Wis. 349; 25 N. W. Rep.
729 ; Navarro v. State, 24 Tex. App.
578; Com. v. SturtiVant, 117 Mass.
122; B. & O. Turn. Co. v. Cassell,
66 Md. 419; Higbie v. Guardian L.
L Co., 53 N. Y. 603; Tierney v.
Railroad Co., 24 Am. L. Reg. 669;
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Rambo, 59
Fed. Rep. 75; People v. Millard, 53
Mich. 63.
6 Montgomery v. 'Scott, 34 Wis.
338.
' Chicago City R. R. Co. v. Van
Vleck (111., 1898), 32 N. E. Rep. 262;
Pennsylvania Co. v. Newmeyer, 129
Ind. 401 ; 28 N. E. Rep. 860.
8 Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Van
Vleok (111., 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 463;
Lawson v. Conaway, 37 W. Va. 159 ;
Doyle v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 59
Hun, 625; Baltimore & O. R. R. Co.
v. Rambo, 59 Fed. Rep. 75; Hardy
V. Merrill, 56 N. H. 227; United
Breth. M. A. I. Co. v. O'Hara, 120
Pa. St. 256; Wilkinson v. Moseley,
30 Ala. 562 ; Barker v. Coleman, 35
Ala. 231 ; Evans v. People, 12 Mich.
27 ; Elliott v. Van Buren, 33 Mich. 49.
9 Heddlea v. Chicago & N. W. R.
Co., 46 N. W. Rep. 115; 71 Wis. 288.
" Louisville, etc. Co. v. Wood, 12
N. E. Rep. 573; King v. Second Ave.
§ 195.]
EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
283
person never had any trouble with his hearing, he will not be
permitted to give an opinion that the person's sight and hear-
ing are ordinary in character.*
Where the symptoms of a disease are such that they are
perceptible and recognizable by a person of ordinary knowl-
elge, a non-expert witness may testify, after stating the facts,
that certain symptoms manifested themselves.^ But no wit-
ness except an expert should be permitted to give an opinion
(except perhaps where the symptoms are indicative of a dis-
ease to the most casual inspection) ' as to the specific medical
character of a disease or injury from which a person is suf-
fering.*
§ 195. Chemists as experts — Poisons. — Chemists and
toxicologists are frequently called as expert witnesses. Thus,
a chemist who is properly qualified may testify to the result
of an analysis of the contents of the stomach or other bodily
organs, made to ascertain the presence of poison.' But a
physician, though he may give an opinion that death resulted
from the administration of a certain poison,* or may describe
the symptoms which are present when poison has been given,''
R. Co., 36 N. Y. S. 973: A non-
expert witness may give his opinion
upon the nature of an injury where
he has adequate knowledge of the
circumstances. Goshen v. England,
21 N. E. Rep. 977; 119 Ind. 368.
1 Barrelle v. Penn. Ry. Co., 4 N.
Y. S. 137. "Any witness of ordi-
nary intelligence may be able to
state tliat a sick or wounded person
has grown worse, or has improved,
without being able to give an accu-
rate description of his condition.
Undoubtedly the'facts on which the
conclusion rests may be asked for
on cross-examination ; but the opin-
ion is not incompetent merely be-
cause the witness cannot state the
ground on which it rests, although
the failure to do so may, perhaps,
weaken its probative force." Louis-
ville, etc. R. Co. V. Wood, 13 N. E.
Rep. 573.
2 See cases cited supra.
* Duntzy v. Van Buren, 5 Hun,
648; Owens v. Kansas City, 95 Mo.
169.
* Where the defendant is sued to
recover the value of a bust which
he refuses to accept, claiming that
it is not a good likeness, a witness
who has for many years been well
acquainted with the person whose
bust is in dispute may testify upon
the question of resemblance or lite-
ness. Schwartz v. Wood, 31 N. Y.
S. 1053; 67 Hun, 638.
5 State v. Bowman, 78 N. C. 509 ;
Hass V. Marshall (Pa., 1888), 14 Atl.
Rep. 431; State v. Cook, 17 Kan.
394; State v. Slagle, 83 N. C. 630;
State V. Hinkle, 6 Iowa, 380 ; Joe v.
State, 6 Fla. 591.
6 Mitchell V. State, 58 Ala. 418.
7 State V. Terrell, 12 Rich. (S. C.)
831; Polk V. State, 36 Ark. 117;
People V. Robinson, 3 Park, Cr. Cas.
236.
284
EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
[§ 196.
will not be permitted to state the result of a chemical analj'sis,
unless it is shown that he is experienced in chemical research.'
So the identity of the subject analyzed with that involved in
the case, and the fact that it has not been tampered with,
must be shown.^ The expert testimony of a chemist is ad-
missible upon the effect of poisons 'and noxious gases/ to show
that one man can safely inhale more gas than another;^ that
certain particular gases are the result of a certain process ; *
as to the ingredients and nature of writing or ottier inks;' to
the safety of oil lamps,' or to the quality of milk.'
§ 196. Expert evidence where sexual crimes have been
committed — Ahortion. — A physician may testify, after an
examination of the person, that there has been actual pene-
tration in a prosecution for rape,^" and may give an opinion
upon the question whether sexual intercourse was possible,"
and whether pregnancy would be likely to ensue where a
rape was committed.'^ So expert testimony is admissible to
show the physical strength and condition of the prosecuting
witness in a prosecution for rape where her ability to resist
1 state V. Cook, 17 Kan. 394. Con-
tra, Siebert v. People, 32 N. E. Rep.
431.
2 State V. Cook, 17 Kan. 394 ; State
V. Hinkle, 6 Iowa, 380.
3 Fox V. Penin. W. L. Co., 92>Mich.
243.
■• Lincoln v. Taunton Co., 9 Allen
(Mass.), 123.
5 Birmingham F, & N. Co. v. Gross
(Ark., 1893), 12 S. Rep. 36.
6 Citizens' G. L. Co. v. O'Brien, 118
111. 174 ; Turner v. Black Warrior, 1
McCall, 181. Cf. Emerson v. Lowell
G. L. Co., 6Allen (Mass.), 146.
7 Sheldon v. Warner, 45 Mich. 638 ;
Goodyear v, Vosburgh, 63 Barb. (N.
Y.) 154; In re Monroe's Estate, 23
Abb. N. C. 83 ; 5 N. Y. S. 552 ; People
V. Brotherton, 47 Cal. 388; Elling-
wood V. Brogg, 53 N. H. 448; Clark
V. Bi-uce, 13 Hun, 271; Allen v.
Hunter, 6 McLean, 303.
^Biercev. Stocking, 11 Gray, 174.
9 Com. V. Holt, 146 Mass. 38. A
witness to be qualified to testify to
the nature and quality of food or
drink need not always be a profes-
sional chemist or analyst. If the
witness possess adequate knowledge
of the articles in question, his tes-
timony is not incompetent beoanse
he has not submitted them to a chem-
ical analysis. So a farmer oj dairy-
man may testify whether milk was
diluted and whether it tasted like
milk and water. Lane v. Wilcox,
55 Barb. (N. Y.) 615. And an habit-
ual drinker of beer may be allowed
to state that a certain liquor was
lager beer. Com. v. Moinehan, 140
Mass. 463; 1 N. E. Rep. 59.
10 State V. Smith, 4 Phill. (N. C.)
303 ; Woodin v. People, 1 Park. C.
C. (N. Y.) 464. Of. Com. v. Lynes,
143 Mass. 577.
n People V. Clark, 33 Mich. 112.
12 Young v. Johnson, 133 N. Y. 326.
§ 197.]
EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
285
the prisoner is in issue.^ A physician may testify to the time
required to commit an abortion ; ^ that an abortion has been
performed,' and that certain drugs* or instruments ^ which
have been found in the possession of the accused were adapted
to produce an abortion. So a physician may be asked if,
under certain circumstances, any traces of an abortion would
remain after one had been committed or attempted.'
§ 197. Expert evidence upon insanity. — According to
the weight of authority, a non-expert witness who has had
adequate means of becoming acquainted with the mental state
of a person whose sanity is in issue may give his opinion
upon the sanity or insanity of the individual.' In doing so,
however, he will be required to state all the facts and cir-
cumstances within his knowledge bearing on the question
and on which his opinion is based.^ The opinion of a non-
1 State V. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148.
2 People V. McGonegal, 136 N. Y.
63.
, 3Com. V. Thompson (Mass., 1893),
33 N. E. Eep. 1111; State v. Smith,
33 Mo. 370; State v. Wood, 53 N. H.
484; Com. v.. Brown, 14 Gray (Mass.),
411.
* Regina v. Still, 30 U. 0. C. P. 30;
Williams V. State (Tex., 1893), 19
S. W. Rep. 897.
5 Com/ V. Brown, 131 Mass. 69 ;
People V. Vedder, 98 N. Y. 630.
^Bathriok v. Detroit, etc. Co., 50
Mich. 629.
7 Mull V. Carr (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E.
Eep. 591 ; State v. Maier, 36 W. Va.
757; Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170;
State V. Lehman (S. D., 1891), 49 N.
W. Rep. 81 ; Conn. M. L. Ins. Co. v.
Lathrop, 111 U. S. 613; Cram v.
Cram, 33 Vt. 15 ; Wheelock v. God-
frey (Cal., 1894), 35 Pac. Rep. 317;
Charter Oak L. Ins. Co. v. Rodel,
95 U. S. 333; Powell v. State, 25
Ala. 28; Norton v. Moore, 3 Head
(Tenn.), 483 ; McClackey v. State, 5
Tex. App. 320; Wood v. State, 58
Miss. 741 ; Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N. Y.
327; State v. Klinger, 46 Mo. 229;
Rutherford v. Morris, 77 111. 397 ; Peo-
ple v. Levy, 71 Cal. 618; Butler v.
Insurance Co., 45 Iowa, 93; Brooke
V. Townsend, 7 Gill (Md.), 10; Peo-
ple V. Wreden, 59 Cal. 393 ; State v.
Hayden, 51 Vt. 396 ; Clary v. Clary,
2 Ired. (N. C.) 78 ; State v. Erb, 74
Mo. 199; Woodcock v. Woodcock,
36 Minn. 217; Pidcock v. Potter, 68
Pa. St. 342; Clark v. State, 13 Ohio
St. 483 ; Pinne}''s Will, 27 Minn. 280 ;
People V. Packenham, 115 N. Y. 200;
Schlencker v. State, 9 Neb. 241.
8 Armstrong v. State, 80 Fla. 170 ;
Ellis V. State (Tex., 1894), 24 S. W.
Eep. 894; White v. Davis, 17 N. Y.
S. 548; 63 Hun, 622; Sharp v. Kan-
sas, etc. Co. (Mo., 1893), SO S. W.
Rep. 93 ; Carpenter v. Bailey, 39 Pac.
Rep. 101; 94 Cal. 406. But some
courts will not receive non-expert
evidence as to insanity except to
describe the acts or conversations of
the alleged insane person, though
the witness may further give his
opinion that such acts and conver-
sations are those of a rational or ir-
rational man. Paine v. Aldrich, 133
286 EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE. [§,197.
professional witness as to insanity upon facts related to him
by others is not admissible. But where he has knowledge of
the circumstances, where he has seen the actions of the per-
son and conversed with him, the law considers it a matter
easily within the mental capacity of any ordinary man to dis-
tinguish and characterize the mental condition or the ap-
pearance and conduct of an insane person. The influence
which his opinions may have upon the jury will depend on
the intelligence he shows on his examination and upon his op-
portunities for acquiring the knowledge upon which he bases
his conclusion. So his experience and personal acquaintance
with the alleged lunatic, his freedom from bias or interest, the
absence of any finely-spun theories from his mental conception
of the whole matter, the fullness of the facts on which his
opinion is based, and the accuracy with which he recollects
these facts, are all elements to be regarded in estimating the
worth of his evidence.' The person whose insanity is involved
may have been so deranged, his mental unsoundness may have
been so palpably apparent from his actions, that an ordinary
person possessing but slight powers of observation may be as
well fitted to express an opinion as the most skilful and
learned expert. Here the insanity is a fact, and the testimony
of the witness, though in form an expression of opinion,
3'et if when giving it he narrates the minor facts from which
it is deduced, and after showing that he has personally known
the party for a long time, he details the furious acts and
gestures, the foolish and incoherent conversations, or the wild
and unnatural conduct of the party, there can be small objec-
tion to his testifying to t-he further fact which any man would
infer from them, i. e., that the party was insane.^ But as to
N. Y. 544 ; 30 N. E. Rep. 725 ; Fay- stances within his personal knowl-
ette V. ChestervlUe, 77 Me. 28 ; Hick- edge upon which that opinion is
man v. State, 38 Tex. 191 ; State v. formed, is competent evidence. In a
Geddis, 42 Iowa, 268. substantial sense, and for every pur-
1 Cf. Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. pose essential to a safe conclusion,
170; McLeod v. State, 81 Tex. Crim. the mental condition of an individ-
Rep. 331. ual as sane or insane is a fact, and
2 ' ' The opinion of a non-profes- the expressed opinion of one who had
sional witness as to the mental con- adequate opportunities to observe
dition of a person, in connection with his conduct and appearance is but the
a statement of the facts and circum- statement of a fact. Insanity is a
§ 197.] EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE. 287
the amount of knowledge which the witness must have, no
definite rule can be laid down. "While the opinion of a wit-
ness who has a full knowledge of the life and surroundings of
the person would naturally possess more weight than that of
one who had only a meager knowledge, the question what
weight the opinion shall have is for the jury alone.^ "Whether
the non-expert witness is competent is for the court; and if it
shall appear that a witness did not have suiiicient opportuni-
ties for observation, his evidence should be pronounced' incom-
petent. The court's decision on this point, it seems, will not be
questioned on appeal;^ nor is it error to charge that the evi-
dence of a physician who has examined the party may be
given more weight than that of a non-expert witness.^
"Where the insanity of a person is a question in issue, the
opinions of competent physicians or of expert alienists are al-
ways admissible. They may have obtained their opinions
from the consideration of facts observed by them in treating
or examining the party, or they may base them upon the
facts contained in a hj'pothetical question, or upon all the
evidience in the case, if they have heard it and if it is not con-
tradictory.* If a personal examination has been made by the
condition which impresses itself as man v. Woodman, 47 N. H. 120;
an aggregate on the observer." Con- State v. Feltes, 51 Iowa, 495 ; Fair-
necticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. La- child v. Basoomb, 35 Vt. 398 ; People
throp, 111 U. S. 618-620. v. Barber, 115 N. Y. 475; Rambler
iCom. V. Buccieri, 153Pa. St. 535; v. Tryson, 7 S. & R. 90; State v.
26 Atl. Rep. 228; McLeod v. State, Baber, 74 Mo. 292; Grant v. Tliomp-
31 Tex. Crim. Rep. 331; Armstrong son, 4Conn. 203; Dejarnetto v. Com.,
T. State, 30 Fla. 170; 11 S. Rep. 618; 75 Va. 867; Conn. L. L Co. v.
Coles V. State, 75 Ind. 511; Sage v. Lathrop, 111 U. S. 612; United States
State, 91 Ind. 141 ; Choice v. State, v. Guiteau, 3 Crim. L. Mag. 347 ; Peo-
31 Ga. 424; McClackey v. State, 5 pie v. Schuyler, 106 N. Y. 298; Dex-
Tex. App. 320. ter v. Hall, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 9; Tules
2Hite V. Com. (Ky., 1893), 20 S. v. Kidd, 12 Ala. 648. "The witness
W. Rep. 217 ; Carpenter v. Hatch who claims to be an expert on insan-
(N. H., 1888), 15 Atl. Rep. 319. itymust have made mental unsound-
3 Blake v. Rourke, 74 Iowa, 519 ; 38 ness a subject of special study, and
N. W. Rep. 392. must have such a practical experi-
* Prentis v. Bates, 53 N. W. Rep. ence in the care and treatment of
153; 93 Mich. 234; Com. v. Buccieri^ insane persons as to render him con-
158 Pa. St. 535 ; 26 Atl. Rep. 238 ; versant with the subject and able to
Quaife v. Chicago Co., 48 Wis. 518; recognize its peculiar subtle mani-
Goddwinv. State, 96 Ind. 550; Board- festations.'' Reese, Med. Juris.
288 EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE. [§ 198.
expert, he will be required to describe the circumstances and
symptoms which he observed to aid the jury in forming a
conclusion ;i but not what the attendants said;^ and besides
this, a hypothetical question may be asked him.' The opin-
ions of the subscribing witnesses to a will are always admissible
concerning the mental condition of the testator at the date of
executing the will, the law having placed them at his side
partly for that purpose, and it is immaterial whether they
are expert or non-expert witnesses, or whether they were
previously acquainted with the testator or not.''
§ 198. Mechanical experts. — Opinion evidence is always
admissible upon matters of trade or transportation where the
subject of inquiry is one out of the cognizance of all those
not engaged in that particular calling.' Thus, a person who
has been connected for a long time with the operation of rail-
roads may testify as to the speed of trains,^ how they are
made up and the duty of conductors;' within what dis-
tance a train may be stopped;^ or he may state his opinion
why it was derailed,'' or as to the proper manner of stopping
a train ; '" or whether brakemen were properly placed." So a
railroad builder is a qualified witness to give an opinion upon
the quality of rolling-stock;^^ whether a railroad is properly
(1891), p. 19. An exception to this ^ Grand R. etc. Co. v. Huntley, 38
rule is made in the case of the fam- Mich. 537.
ily physician of the alleged lunatic. ' Price v. Richmond & D. R. Co.
Hastings y. Rider, 99 Mass. 625. (S. C, 1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 783.
1 White V. Barley, 10 Mich. 155; « Grimmell v. Chicago, etc. Co., 73
Puyar v. Reese, 46 Tenn. 21. Iowa, 93 ; Freeman v. Travelers' Ins.
2Heald v. Thwing, 45 Me. 396. Co., 144 Mass. 572; 12 N. E. Rep.
3 People V. Lake, 12 N. Y. 358; 873.
Meelier v. Meeker (Iowa, 1888), 37 ^ Fort Worth Ry. Co. v. Thomp-
N. W. Rep. 778. son, 75 Tex. 501 ; Seaver v. Boston,
^Eliinton v. Brick, 44 N. J. Eq. etc. Co., 14 Gray (Mass.), 466.
154; 15 Atl. Rep. 391; Van Huss v. "Mobile, etc. Co. v. Blakely, 59
Raiubolt, 42 Tenn. 139; Hardy v. Ala. 471. Of. O'Neill v. Railway
Merrill, 56 N. H. 227; Poole v. Rich- Co., 129 N. Y. 135.
ardson, 3 Mass. 330; Deartt v. Bar- ngchlaf v. Railroad Co. (Ala., 1893),
ley, 9 N. Y. 371; Williams v. Lee, 14 S. Rep. 105; Cincinnati, etc. Co.
47 Mo. 321 ; Potts v. House, 6 Ga. v. Smith, 23 Ohio St. 227 ; Reifsny-
324; Grant v. Thompson, 4 Conn, der v. Chic. Meter Co. (Iowa, 1894),
203 ; Robinson v. Adams, 63 Me. 369. 57 N. W. Rep. 692.
5 Ft. Worth, etc. Co. v. Great- 12 Jeffersonville, etc. Co. v, Lan-
house, 83 Tex. 104. ham, 27 Ind. 171.
I 198.]
EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
289
built;' whether a section of road was finished upon a certain
date,^ or whether a culvert was in good repair.' But gener-
allj' a witness is not considered an expert, though possessing
a general knowledge of the managerrient of railroads, unless
he has a special knowledge of that branch to which he is
called to spea,k.* A nautical expert may give an opinion that
a ship was properly managed * or the cargo properly stowed ; "
that a vessel was seaworthy;' as to the cause of a ship being
stranded;* what is a safe cargo for a ship;' as to the sound-
ness of a cable,'" the cause of a leak," and as to the size of
waves which would be caused by the wind.'^ So when the
issue is whether a collision could have been avoided," or a
ship could have reached port if properly managed;" what
the effect of a storm would be on the management of the ves-
sel ;'■' whether a jettison was necessary,"' or whether a deck-
load would render a vessel unsafe," the evidence of an expert
is Admissible.'*
1 Colorado Mid.,Ey. v. O'Brien, 16
Colo. 319.
2 Louisville, etc. Co. v. Donegan,
111 Ind. 179.
3 Bonner v. Mayfield, 83 Tex. 334.
4 McKelvey v. Railway Co., 39 W.
Va. 500; Pennsylvania Co. v. Con-
Ian, 101 111. 93; Bixby v. Montpelier,
etc. Co., 49 Vt. 135: Ballard v. N.
Y., L. E. etc. Co., 136 Pa. St. 141;
Hill V. Portland, etc. Co., 55 Me.
438; Baldwin v. Chicago, etc. Co.,
50 Iowa, 680; Ft. Worth, etc. Co. v.
Tliorapson, 31 S. W. Rep. 737; Ft.
Worth & 'D. C. Ry. Co. v. Wilson,
34 S. W. Rep. 686 ; 3 Tex. Civ. App.
583.
5 Qusterman v. Liverpool Ins. Co.,
83 N. y. 358; Union Ins. Co. v.
Smith, 8 S. Ct, 534; Delaware, etc.
Co. V. Starrs, 69 Pa. St. 36 ; Eastern
Trans. Co. v. Hope. 95 U. S. 397.
6 Price V. Powell, 3 N. Y. 323;
Leitch V. At. Mut. Ins. Co., 66 N. Y.
100.
'Baird v. Daily, 68 N. Y. 547;
Western Ins. Co. v. Tobin, 33 Ohio
19
St. 377; Perkins v. Augusta Ins. Co.,
10 Gray, 313.
8 N. E. Glass Co. v. Lovell, 7 Cush.
819.
I >> Ogden V. Parsons, 33 How. (U. S.)
167.
WReed v. Dick, 8 Watts (Pa.), 479>
"Paddock v. Con. Ins. Co., 104
Mass. 521 ; Parsons v. Man. etc. Co.,
16 Gray (Mass.), 463.
12 Smith V. Railroad Co., 76 Tex. 63.
1' Jameson v. Drinkard, 13 Moore,
148; Fenwick v. Bell, 1 C. & K. 313;
Carpenter v. Eastern Trans. Co., 71
N. Y. 374; 67 Barb. 570.
"The Alaska, 33 Fed. Rep. 107;
Dolz V. Morris, 17 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 303.
iSTransp. Line v. Hope, 95 U. S.
297; Walsh v. Washington, etc. Co.,
33 N. Y. 437.
16 Price V. Hartson, 44 N. Y. 94.
I'Lapham v. Atlas Ins, Co., 84
Pick. (Mass.) 1. Contra, Schnrreger
V. Raymond, 105 N. Y. 648.
18 C/. East Tennesee, etc. Co. v.
Wright, 76 Ga. 533.
290 EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE. [§ 198.
Persons who have had experience in operating certain
machinery, even though not machinists by trade/ may give
their opinion as to the value ^ of similar machinery, or that
machinery in suit is not well constructed,' or is the best
known,"" or is equal to the best,^ or has a capacity for doing
certain work.'^ A witness who, from long experience in using
a certain machine, is qualified to speak as an expert, may
testify to the capacity of an identical machine, though he may
never have seen the machine in dispute.' An experienced
mason or builder may testify to the time required for the
walls of a house to dry in order to render it habitable;^ as
to the cause of the dampness of walls;' whether the defect-
ive operation of a mill was the result of mismanagement or
faulty construction;'" as to the proper mode of removing
paint from the walls of buildings; '^ whether a building is a
"good job;"'^ as to the meaning of the terra ""brick build-
ing;"" whether a house is worth the amount alleged," and the
time required to alter or repair it.'^ So a skilled architect
may testify to the strength, construction and sufficiency of a
building,^'' and whether it would be safe to run up a buildmg
in a specified time." When, however, the facts are such that
• Sheldon v. Booth, 50 Iowa, 209; of burning tiles is in issue, a brick or
Cole V. Clark, 3 Wis. 323. Cf. Fox tile maker is a competent expert.
V. Peninsula W. L. Co. (Minn., 1893), Wiggins v. Wallace, 19 Barb. 338.
53 K W. Rep. 623. n Church of Holyoke v. Mut. Fire
2 Latham v. Shipley (Iowa, 1893), Ins. Co. (Mass., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep.
53 N. W. Rep. 3 J 3. 573.
3 Sheldon v. Booth, 50 Iowa, 209 ; 12 Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413.
Curtis V. Gano, 26 N. Y. 436. 13 Mead v. N. W. Ins. Co., 3 Selden
< Great W. R. R. Co. v. Ha worth, (7 N. Y.), 530.
39 111. 349. "Tebbetts v. Haskins, 16 Me. 283;
sScattergood v. Wood, 79 N. Y. Woodruff v. Inperial F. I. Co.,83N,
263. Y. 113.
« Burns v. Welch, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) is Terra Haute v. Hudnut, 18 Am.
117; Bemis v. Vermont R. R. Co., 58 & Eng, Corp. Cas. 302; Lewis v. In-
Vt. 636. surance Co., 45 N. W. Rep. 749;
' Brierly v. Davol Mills, 128 Mass. Campbell v. Russell, 139 Mass. 278.
891; National Bank v. Dunn, 106 wprendible v. Conn. R. E. Co.
Ind. 110. (Mass., 1893), 35 N. E. Rep. 675;
8 Smith V. Gugerty, 4 Barb. 619. Turner v. Hahr (Mo., 1893), 21 S. W.
8 Lotz V. Scott, 103 Ind. 155. Rep. 737.
"Chandler v. Thompson, 80 Fed. "Chamberlain v, Dunlap, 8 N. Y.
Eep. 33. Where the proper method S. 125.
§ 109.]
EXPEKT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
2}1
ordinary persons are fully capable of forming an opinion
thereon, and tiaere is at the same time direct evidence of facts
and circumstances from wliich, if they believe them to be
true, the jury may infer negligence in the construction of
buildings, expert evidence should be dispensed witli as unnec-
essary.i The opinion of a surveyor is admissible to identify
monuments employed as boundaries,'^ or to estimate how
much land would be flooded on a certain date.' The testi-
mony of an expert is admissible to show that a defect exists
in a sewer* or highway; that a road is in a dangerous condi-
tion;' but not that an old road has been abandoned,* or, that
a new road would be of use to the public.'' So, too, a miner
of long experience may give his opinion whether the width
of a cross-section in a mine is stifficient to secure the safety
of those employed therein.*
§ 199. Expert evidence as to value. — An expert may tes-
tify as to the value of labor or services,' merchandise,'" ani-
1 Turner v. Hahr (Mo., 1893), 21 S. Co. v. Cassell, 66 Md. 419; Fairbury
W. Eep. 737 ; Gerbig v. Railroad Co., v. Rogers, 9S III. 554. Contra, Con-
rad V. Ithaca, 16 N. Y. 15S; Yean v.
Williams, 15 R. I. 20 ; Crane v. North-
field, 38 Vt. 126; Montgomery v.
Scott, 34 Wis. 345.
6 Pittsburgh, etc. Co. v. Reich, 101
111. 157.
' Thotnpson v. Deprez, 96 Ind. 67.
SMcNamara v. Logan (Ala., 189i),
14 S. Rep. 175.
9 Brown v. Prude (Ala., 1893), 11
S. Rep. 833 : Head v. Hargrave, 105
U. S. 45 ; Mercer v. Vose, 67 N. Y.
56; Carruthers y. Town, 53 N. W.
Rep. 240; Reynolds v. Robinson, 64
22 N. Y. S. 21 ; Davis v. New York,
L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 69 Hun, 174.
2McGaun v. Hamilton, 58 Conn.
69; Knox v. Clark, 123 Mass. 216.
3 Phillips V. Terry, 3 Abb. Dec.
(N. Y.) 607. Cf. Brantley v. Swift,
24 Ala. 390; St. Louis, etc. Co. v.
Bradley, 54 Fed. Rep. 630; Schultz
V. Lindell, 30 Mo. 310; Randolph v.
Adams, 2 W. Va. 519; Pasachane
Water Co. v. Standart (Cal., 1893),
32 Pac. Rep. 532.
< Stead V. Worcester, 150 Mass. 241.
s Harris v. Clinton, 31 N. W. Rep.
425 ; Stillwater Co. v. Coover, 26 N. Y. 589. The witness must know
Ohio St. 520 ; Laughlin v. Street R.
R. Co., 62 Mich. 220; Baltimore, etc.
the usual rate of compensation for
such services at the time and place
" Wheton v. Snider, 88 N. Y. 299;
Printz V. People, 43 Mich. 144; State
V. Finch, 70 Iowa, 316; Berney v.
Dinsmore, 141 Mass. 42; Walker v.
Bernstein, 43 111. App. 568; Mu-
Gowan v. Amer. Press. Tan Bark,
121 U. S. 575 ; Muckle v. Rendle, 16
N. Y. S. 208; Walker v. Collins, 50
Fed. Rep. 737; Allen v. Carpenter,
66 Tex. 138; Latham v. Brown, 48
Kan, 190 ; Redding v. Wright (Minn.,
1892), 51 N. W. Rep. 1056; Huber v.
Beck (Ind., 1893), 33 N. B. Rep. 985;
Blagen v. Thompson (Greg., 1893),
81 Pac. Rep. 647.
293
•EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
[§ 199.
mals' or land,^ -where he has peculiar experience or informa-
tion and where the subject of inquiry is not within common
knowledge.' But while weight should be given to his evi-
dence, his opinion is onl3' conclusive on the jury as far as it is
reasonable and consistent with general knowledge and with
the facts which are proved in the case.* The question of
damages is for the jury. Hence the opinion of a witness is
not receivable upon this point ;^ nor can an expert be asked
where the services were rendered.
Sohuhle V. Cunningham, 14 Daly,
404; Alt V. California Fig Syrup Co.,
19 Nev. 118; Stevens v. Minneapolis
(Minn., 1889), 43 N. W. Rep. 84 J
(services of attorney); Kelly v.
Rowane, 33 Mo. App. 440 ; Lamoure
V. Caryl, 4 Den. 170. The expert
who testifies to the value of personal
services should possess some prac-
tical knowledge or experience in the
line of the services rendered, either
by having rendered such services
himself or by having had frequent
occasion to pay for them. Doster v.
Brown, 25 Ga. 34; Walker v. Fields,
28 id. 287; Scott v. Lilienthal, 9
Bosw. 224; Tebbetts v. Haskins, 16
Me. 283. If he has a competent
knowledge of the business in which
the services were rendered, it is not
necessary that he should have been
himself engaged in it. Pullman v.
Corning, 14 Barb. 174; 9 N. Y. 93;
Carroll v. Welch, 26 Tex. 147;
Barnes v. Ingalls, 39 Ala. 193. So a
physician may testify to the value
of a nurse's services. Woodward v.
Bugsbee, 3 Hun, 138.
1 Bowers v. Hogan, 98 Mich. 430 ;
Conkling v. Hannibal, etc. Co., 54
Mo. 385; Harris v. Railroad Co., 36
N. Y. Sup. Ct. 373.
^Blass V. Copley, 10 N. Y. 93;
Patterson v, Boston, 20 Pick. (Mass.)
159; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Bowersox, 6
Ohio Cir. Ct. 1 ; Miughan v. Burns,
26 Atl. Rep. 583. An ordinary real-
estate agent is not competent as an
expert upon land values (Laing v.
United, etc. Co., 54 N. J. L. 576),
unless he has resided in the place for
some time and has had charge of
property near the land in question.
Ragan v. Kansas City & S. E. R.
Co., Ill Mo. 456. As to rental value,
see Ives v. Quinn, 27 N. Y. S. 251.
'A farmer may testify as to the
value of crops. Chicago R. Co. v.
Mouriquand, 45 Kan. 170.
« Bramble v. Hunt, 68 Hun, 204;
Head v. Hargrave, 105 U. S. 45. In
regard to the value of household
furniture, weaving apparel, etc., any
person may testify, as all persons
are presumed to know the value of
articles in common use. Parmelee
V. Raymond, 43 111. App. 6C9 ; Erick-
son V. DraskowskI, 94 Mich. 551.
Cf. Rodemaclier v. Greenwich Ins.
Co., infra; Murdock v. Summer, 22
Pick. 158; Randall v. Packard, 20
N. Y. S. 716; Bentley v. Brown, 37
Kan. 14.
5 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
Wright, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 103; Lo-
gausport v. McMillen, 49 Ind. 495;
Vandeusen v. Young, 26 N. Y. 9;
McReynolds v. Railroad Co., 106 111.
152 ; Trammell v. Raraage, 11 S. Rep.
916 ; Crohen v. Ewers, 39 111. App.
34 ; Galveston, H. & S. A. Co. v.
Wesch (Tex., 1898), 23 S. W. Rep.
957; Sharon v. Morris, 18 Pac. Rep.
230; 39 Kan. 377; Upcher v. Ober-
lender, 31 Pac. Rep. 1080; 50 Kan.
§ 199.] EXPEKT AND OPINION EVIDENCE. * 293
what would be the future value of property ' or the effect of
an injury to it.^ A housekeeper of experience is a competent
expert witness to the value of board and lodging' or house-
hold furniture or goods;* and one who, though not a dealer,
has attended many sales of second-hand furniture, may give
an opinion as to the value of such merchandise.^ But a per-
son IS not an expert who has no knowledge of the market
value of goods,^ or who has acquired his knowledge by buying
goods from parties not in the trade.'' The fact that the wit-
ness bases his opinion of value upon an exceptional demand
for the merchandise in question, while it may affect the
weight, is no objection to the admissibility of his evidence.^
Based upon the grounds of the speculative character of any
opinion which may be given in regard to their value, another
exception is made in cases where the value of choses in action
is concerned. A witness will not be allowed to give an
opinion as to the value of a contract or the possible or prob-
able amount of profit it might have yielded if it had not been
broken.' So in the case of negotiable instruments which are
presumed to be worth their face value,"* opinions are not ad-
missible as to their value, the proper elements of which, i. 0.,
the solvency of the parties and the validity of the instruments,
are for the consideration cff the court and jury." It seems,
315; Chicago, K. & W E. Co. v. 603; Allen v. Stout, 51 K. Y. 668;
Stewart, 31 Pac. Rep. 668; .'iO Kan. Ranch v. N. Y., L. & W. R. R. Co.,
S3; New Mexican R. R. Co. v. Hen- 2 N. Y. S. 108.
dricks (N. Mex., 1893), SO Pac. Rep. 3 Hook v. Kenyon, 55 Hun, 598.
901; Sixth Ave. R. Co. v. Metropol- < Rodemacher v. Green. Ins. Co.,
itan R. Co., 34 N. E, Rep. 400; 138 27 N. Y. S. 155.
N. Y. 548; Blum v. Manhattan Ry. » Phillips v. McNab, 9 N. Y. S. 526.
Co., 1 Misc. Rep. 119; 20 N. Y. S. ^Frederick v. base, 28 111. App.
722. 315.
1 Devlin v. New York, 4 Misc. 'Campbell v. Campbell, 54 N. Y.
Rep. 106; 23 N. Y. S. 888; Bookman Super. Ct. 381.
V. New York El. R. Co., 137 N. Y. nVestern Ry. v. Lazarus, 88 Ala.
.595 ; Lazarus v. Metropolitan El. Ry. 453.
Co., 69 Hun, 190; Little v. Lisch- 9 Devlin v. City of New York, 4
koflE (Ala., 1893), 12 S. Rep. 429; Misc. Rep. 106.'
Trammell v.'Eamage (Ala., 1893), 11 I'Loomis v. Mowry, 8 Hun, 311.
S, Rep. 916. " Potter v. Merchants' Bank, 28 N.
^Ferguson v. Hubbell, 97 N. Y. Y. 641; Atkinson v. Rooh Printing.
507; Bedell v. L. L R. R. Co:, U Co., 43 Hun, 167.
N. Y. 367; Paige v. Kelly, 5 Hill,
294 EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE. [§ 200.
however, that expert evidence may be received of the value
of non-speculative financial securities having a well-recognized
market value.' It is no objection that the knowledge of the
witness was acquired wholly from an inspection of bills of the
goods,^ from market reports,' or from personal inquiries made
by him.* His evidence is not thereby rendered inadmissible
if the witness is otherwise qualified by experience and has
examined the goods or premises in question.' The plaintiff
has been permitted to give his opinion of the value of his
goods which were damaged, where he was also able to state
the facts on which the opinion was based. ^ Where the pro-
duction of an article is impossible because of its loss or de-
struction, its value may be proved by comparison. It is neces-
sary first to prove the resemblance of the lost article to one
which can be produced, and this can be done by a witness
who is not an expert.' The value of the latter article may
then be shown by expert testimony, and on the evidence of
both witnesses thus connected the jury may base their verdict
as to the value of the missing article.*
§ 200. Underwriters as experts. — There is a seeming
confusion in the decisions upon the question of the admissibility
of expert evidence in actions which are brought upon policies
of insurance. Where the increase of risk or breach of con-
dition is such that any ordinary person would be able to form
a conclusion; as, for example, whether leaving a dwelling-
house unoccupied for a considerable length of time is an in-
iSistare v. Olcott, 15 N. Y. State 130 U. S. 520; Harris v. Schuttler
Eep. 248. (Tex., 1894), 24 S. W. Rep. 989
2 Epos V. St. Paul F. & Marine BischofE v. Schraetz, 5 N. Y. S. 757
Ins. Co. (S. D., 1894), 57 N. W. Eep. Roberts, v. Boston, 149 Mass. 346
919. Michael v. Crescent Pipe Line Co.
3 Eodee v. Detroit Fire & Mar. Ins. (Pa., 1893), 28 Atl. Rep. 204.
Co., 86 N. Y. S. 242 ; Hoxsie v. Ein- « Rodee v. Detroit F. & M. Ins. Co.,
pire Lumber Co., 41 Minn. 548 ; Gulf, 2G N. Y. S. 243. As to the necessity
C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Patterson (Tex., of experts stating their means of
1894), 24 S. W. Rep. 349. knowledge, see Ft. Worth, etc. Co.
« Jones V. Snyder, 117 Ind. 229; v. Hurd (Tex., 1894), 34 S. W. Eep.
Phenix Ins. Co. V. Copeland, 86Ala. 995.
551 ; Gfiswold v. Gebbie, 126 Pa. St. " Berney v. Dinsmore, 141 Mass. 43,
858; F6rbe3 v. Howard, 4 R. I. 304. 8 Home Ins. Co. v. Weide, 11 Wall.
« Stillwell & B. Mfg, Co. v. Phelps, (U. S.) 438.
§ 200.]
EXPEET AHD OPINION EVIDENCE.
295
crease of risk, the evidence of an expert is not admissible.'
But where the question is whether in a certain case a higher
premium would have been charged, the evidence of an insur-
ance expert is admissible to show that fact, under the rule
which permits the introduction of evidence of usage. Here ihe
evidence of the expert is not his opinion, but evidence as to
the fact or usage, and the inferences therefrom are for the
jury.^ So expert evidence is inadmissible as to the quantity
of goods burned, based upon the amount of the dahris,^ as to
the origin of a fire,* or whether the use of an engine without
a spark-arrester is likely to cause fires.^ A physician may
testify in an action on a life insurance policy that a certain
habit, disease or injury may cause death;* but, generally,
where the question is, Was the person a good risk or insurable,
or were there material misrepresentations? the opinion of ah
expert will not be received.'
1 Hahnv. Guardian Assur. Co. (Or.,
1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 683; Milwaukee
V. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 649; Anthony
V. Gerriiaij Am. Ins. Co., 48 Mc. App.
65; Walradt v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 136
N. Y. 375; Carniell v. Phenix Ins.
Co., 59 Me. 583; Luce v. Dorch. M.
P. I. Co., 105 Mass. 497; Jefferson
Ins. Co. V. Cotheal, 7 Wend. (N. Y.)
72; Hill V. Lafayette Ins. Co., 2 Md.
476; Hartford Pro. Ins. Co. v. Har-
mer, 3 Ohio St. 453.
2Rawls V. Amer. Mut. L. Ins. Co.,
27 N. Y. 283 ; First Church v. Hol-
yoke M. Ins. Co., 33 N. E. Rep. 573
(Mass., 1893); Hawes v. N. E. Ins.
Co., 2 Curt. 0. C. 239; Luce v. In-
surance Co., 105 Mass. 397 ; Hartman
V. Keystone Ins. C6., 21 Pa, St. 466;
Loomis V. Insurance Co., 81 Wis. 366 ;
51 N. W. Rep. 56t; Lyman v. State
Ins. Co., 14 Alien (Mass.), 329; Pelzer
Manuf. Co. v. Sun Fire Office of
London, 36 S. C. 213; 15 S, E. Rep.
563; Cornish v. Farm Bid. Ins. Co.,
74 N. Y. 875 ; Hobby v. Dana, 17
Barb. Ill: Keen v. South St. Louis
Co.; 40 Mo. 19. A witness cannot
be asked, where the question in issue
is, Was a misrepresentation or con-
cealment material? whether he con-
sidered it so, or would he have taken
the risk if the fact concealed hud
been made known, or what influ-
ence the fact concealed would have
had if known. But he may be asked
what" effect it actually had. Ab-
bott's Trial Ev., 494, citing Walsh v.
.^tna L. Ins. Co., 30 Iowa, 133.
'Birmingham F. Ins. Co. v. Pul-
ver, 37 111. App. 17; 136 111. 339.
* Cook V. Johnston, 58 'Mich. 437.
5 Teal V. Barton, 40 Barb. (N. Y.)
137. Cf. Hays v. Miller, 70 N. Y.
113; Higgins v. Dewey, 107 Mass.
494; Frace v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R.
Co., 23 N. Y. S. 958.
^Millerv. Mut. Ben. L. Ins. Co.,
81 Iowa, 316.
' Rawls V. Am. L. Ins. Co., 36 Barb.
857: 27 N. Y. 283; Wich v. Eijuitable
F. & M. Ins. Co. (Colo., 1893), 31 Pae.
Rep. 389 ; Pelzer Manuf. Co. v. Ger-
man Ins. Co. of New York, 36 S. C.
213.
296 EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE. [§ 201.
§ 201. Experiments in and out of court. — The witness, if
he is not an expert, will not be permitted to testify to the rer
suit of experiments which have been made out of court.^ But
where the circumstances or conditions existing or alleged to
exist in the case at trial and surrounding the subject-matter are
reproduced at the time of the experiment, a witness who is an
expert maj'' state his opinion together with the result of an
experiment made by him out of court.^ An expert may be
allowed to conduct an experiment in court to illustrate or
emphasize his testimony, provided it is shown by independent
evidence that the exact conditions alleged to have existed are
reproduced before the jury.^ Thus, where a machine was
alleged to be defective, the defendant was allowed to operate
it before the jury to show that the reason of its defective
operation was the unskilfulness or physical weakness of the
plaintiff.* So, too, an expert may be allowed to subject a
writing purporting to be a will to. a test with chemicals to
ascertain the character of the ink and whether the instrument,
bad been tampered with.' Comparisons ma}' also be made
by expert witnesses in court. So where the quality of an ar-
1 State V. Justus, 11 Oreg. 170; s state v. Soiith, 49 Conn. 376;
Com. V. Fairchell, 1 Biewst. (Pa.) Siberry v. State (Ind., 1893), 33
566. N. E. Eep. 681; State v. Fletcher
2 Williams v. Taunton, 125 Mass. (Oreg., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 575; In re
64; Sullivan V, State, 93 Pa. St. 285; Monroe's Est., 1 Con. Sur. 496; 33
Eidtv. Cutter, 137 Mass. 523; Com. v, Abb. N. C. 83; Leonard v. Southern
Piper, 130 id. 188; Burg v. Chicago, Pac. R. Co., 21 Oreg. 555; People v.
R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa, 1894), 57 Hope, 63 Cal. 291 ; Osborne v. De-
N. W. Rep. 680 ; Boyd v. State, 14 troit, 38 Fed. Eep. 36.
Lea (Tenn.), 161; Brook v. Chicago, < Nat. etc, Co. v. Southern Pac. R.
etc. Co. (Iowa. 1891), 47 N. W. Rep. Co., 85 Mich. 355; Probert v. Phipps,
74; State v. Jones, 41 Kan. 309. 149 Mass. 258. As to articles in
That the adverse party was not court, see ante, g§ 38, 39. Where
present In person or by his agent the experiment will consume some
when the experiment was made is" time, it is not an abuse of judicial
immaterial. Burg v. Chicago, R. I. discretion for which a new trial
& Pac. Ry., 57 N. W. Rep. 680 (Iowa, will bo granted for the court to re-
1894). In a criminal trial, the state fuse to permit the experiment to
being permitted ,to prove experi- be made in open court. People v,
ments, it is revei sible error to refuse Levire, 85 Cal. 89 ; 34 Pac. Rep. 631.
the defendant the right to introduce 5 fn re Monroe, 1 Con. Sur. 496; 5
tho same sort of evidence in re- N. Y. S. 553 ; 23 Abb. N. C. 83,
buttal. Smith v. State, 3 Obio St.
513.
§ 202.]
EXPEET AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
297
tide or its adaptability to a certain purpose is in issue, a
sample of the article in question may be shown to the jury
.together with a sample of a similar article which the witness
has testified was of good quality or was well adapted for the
purpose required, and the jury may be allowed to compare
them to ascertain the points of difference, if any.^
§ 202. Physical examination of the party by experts. —
The question whether the court in civil cases can compel the
plaintiff to furnish evidence by submitting to a physical ex-
amination by a physician has been differently decided. The
affirmative is supported by a majority of the cases, which
maintain that the courts have an inherent power to do this,
basing their reasoning upon the necessity for the inspection,^
though there are other cases sustaining the proposition that,
while such an inspection may be allowed, it cannot in the ab-
sence of a statute be compelled.^
Where the annulment of a marriage is asked for by one of
the parties thereto upon the ground of the impotenoy of the
other, the court may compel him or her to submit to an ex-
amination by a competent physician or midwife.^ In such a
1 People V. Buadensieck, 103 N. Y.
498; 5 N. Y. Crim. Eep. 69.
2 Graves v. Battle Creek (Mich.,
1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 757; Winner- v.
Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511; International,
etc. Co. V. Underwood, 64 Tex. 464 ;
Kinney v. Springfield, 35 Mo. App.
397; White v. Milw. etc. Go., 61
Wis. 536; A., T. & S. F. R. Co. v.
Thul, 29 Kan. 466; Walsh v Sayre,
52 How. Pr. 384 ; Terre Haute, etc.
Co. y. Brincker, 128 Ind. 543: Miami,
etc. Co. T. Baily, 37 Ohio St. 104;
Shephard v. Railway Co., 85 Mo.
639; Schroeder v. Railway Co., 47
Iowa, 375. The necessity for the ex-
amination must be affirmatively
shown (Bridge Co. v. Miller (111.,
1893), 28 N. E. Rep. 1091 ; Joliet R.
Co. V. Caul, 43 111. App. 41), and the
selection of the physician is within
the discretion of the court (Alabama,
etc. Co. V. Hill, 94 Ala. 514); though
if the plaintiff is willing to be ex-
amined by any disinterested pai'son,
a physician need not be appointed.
Gulf, etc. Co. V. Norfleet(Tex., 1891),
14 S. W. Rep. 703. As a means of
exposing malingering and of ascer-
taining the exact character and ex-
tent of a local physical injury, such
an examination, if properly and
fairly conducted, would seem unob-
jectionable upon eithei" ethical or
legal grounds. It should be promptly
applied for before the plaintiff has
testified, unless from his evidence it
appears that he is feigning. Gales-
burg V. Benedict, 22 111. App. HI.
SHess V. Lake Shore & M. Co., 7
Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 565 ; Stuart v. New
Haven, 17 Neb. 311; Parker v. En-
slow, 103 111. 273 ; Shephard v. Rail-
way Co., 85 Mo. 629; Peoria, etc. Co.
V. Rice (III., 1893), 33 N. K Rep. 951 ;
St. Louis Bridge Co. v. Miller, 138
111. 4)5.
* Anonymous (Ala., 1890), 7 S. Rep.
298 EXPERT AUn OPINION EVIDENCE. [§ 202.
delicate matter the feelings of the part}"- who is to bo exam-
ined oufht to be respected so far as is consistent with a due
administration of justice. So a physical examination in the
case of alleged impotency being justified solely by the neces-
sity of the case should only be ordered when the need for it is
positively and affirmatively shown.' If the party resists the
appointment of a physician or refuses to be examined, a re-
buttable presumption of his of her impotency will be created
thereby,- which it is then incumbent on him or her to over-
come.
Under the rule that an accused person is not compellable to
furnish evidence against himself, a court, it has been held, has
no power to compel a prisoner to submit-to an examination
by an expert.' Accordingly, evidence which has been pro-
cured by a compulsory comparison of the shoes of the defend-
ant with footprints observed near the locality of the crime
should be rejected.'' Where the mental and physical condi-
tion of the accused is voluntarily put in issue by him by a plea
of insanity, no injustice will result in his being compelled by
the court to submit to a physical examination b}' a competent
physician, and this, accordingly, may be done.^ So the court
may compel a party in a civil suit to unveil in order that she
may be identified by a witness in court."
100; Brown v. Brown, 1 Hagg. 523; < Day v. State, 63 Ga. 667; Stokes
Newell V. Newell, 9Paige(N. Y.). 26; v. State, 5 Baxt. (Tenn.)619; People
Dean v. Aveling, 1 Rob. 279 ; Deven- v. Mead, 50 Mich. 228. Contra,
baugh V. Devenbaugli, 5 Paige, 554; State v. Graham, 74 N. G. 646;
Welde V. Welde, 2 Lee, 580 ; Briggs Walker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 245.
V. Morgan, 3 Phil. 325; H v. In State v. Garrett, 71 N. C. 85, and
P , L. E. 3 P. & D. 126; G Spicer v. State, 69 Ala. 159, physi-
V. G , L. R. 2 P. & D. 287. cians were permitted to testify to
• Newell V. Newell, 9 Paige, 86. the result of the examination of the
''' Harrison v. Harrison, 4 Moore accused.
P. C. 96; H V. P , L. R. 3 ^pjei-gon v. People, 79 N. Y. 434;
P. &D. 126; Pollard V. Sey bourn, 1 People v. Taylor, 138 N. Y. 398.
Hagg. 75. See ante, § 178; post. § 351.
3 State V. Johnson, 67 N. C. 58; 6Rice v. Rice (N. Y., 1891), 19
People V. McCoy, 45 How. Pr. (N. Y.) Atl. Rep. 786.
316.
CHAPTER XYL
PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AS RELATED TO WRITINGS.
SOS, Parol evidence, when inad-
missible.
308. Interpretation and construc-
tion of writings.
207. Rule applies between parties
only.
208. Invalidity of writings — Evi-
dence to vary or explain or
show real consideration.
209. Incomplete and collateral
writings,
310, Parol evidence to connect and
explain contemporaneous
writings,
311, Receipts,
313, Independent parol contracts
and conditions precedent.
213. To establish implied, result-
ing or constructive trusts.
§ 314, Discharge, modification or
extension of contract may
be shown.
815. To rebut presumptions.
31G. To show usage.
817. To explain technical terms,
318. Abbreviations.
219. The relations of the parties.
320. To ascertain or explain sub-
ject-mattei\
831. Ambiguities defined and dis-
tinguished — Parol evi-
dence to explain.
222. Parol evidence as applicable
to wills.
233, Parol evidence to show abso-
lute deed a mortgage and
in suits for specific perform-
ance and reformation or
cancellation.
§ 205. Parol evidence, when inadmissible. — Parol evi-
dence is not admissible to control, add to, vary or contradict
the language of a valid written instrument.' The words
" written instrument," thus used, do not refer to or include
everything which has been committed to writing and which
has passed between the parties. The rule is designed to pro-
tect the honest, careful and prudent in their contracts and
business transactions against the results of fraud and perjury,
carelessness and inaccuracy. By it evidence of the intention
UGreenl. on Ev., § 375. By
parol evidence is meant oral evi-
dence or the statements of witnesses
made viva voce, as distinguished
from documentaiy evidence. Its
meaning is, however, sometimes ex-
tended so as to include preliminary
or unexecuted memoranda or notes
in writing which have passei^ be-
tween the parties prior to the execu-
tion of the deed or final written
contract which is in question. An-
derson's Diet.
300 FAEOL OB EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE. [§ 205.
of the parties is furnisbed, which can always be produced
without fear of change or liability lo misconstruction.' Such
documents only are within the rule which represent and con-
tain the deliberate intention of the parties; and the existence
of deliberation in making the agreement may usually and
justly be inferred from the use of language which creates a
valid contractual obligation, the subject and extent of which
must be ascertained from the writing alone.^ This rule doubt-
less had its origin in the once universal custom of the parties
to a written agreement affixing their seals, and this solemn
and formal act, as it was regarded from the common-law
standpoint,' impressed a fixed and unchangeable character on
the instrument, which demanded the exclusion not only of all
verbal modifications of it, but of unsealed writings as well.^
With the increase in the use of writing attendant upon the
increase of education and the spread of commerce and manu-
facture in recent times, the operation of the rule was extended
to simple or unsealpd writings. The rule has been applied to
court records^ and public records generally;* to the written
awards of arbitrators;' to deeds of conveyance,' mortgages,'
minutes of private corporations," leases,^' assignments,'^ con-
1 Union M. Ins, Go. v. Wilkinson, 25 Atl. Rep. 48; Lowdermilk v. Bos-
13 Wall. 331. tick, 98 N. C. 299; Sage v. Jones, 47
2 See post, § 209. Ind. 123 ; Lear v. Durgin, 64 N. H.
3 3 Bl. Com. 305-6. 618; Miller v. Fletcher, 27 Giatt.
* See the remarks of Parker, J., in (Va.) 403; Warren v. Miller, 38 Me.
Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 31. 108; Richards v. Crocker, 66 Hun,
'Armstrong v. St. Louis, 69 Mo. 629; Ritchie v. Pease, 114 111. 353.
309; Roche v. Beldam, 119 111. 320; 9 Union Nat. Bank v. Int. Bank,
Duggerv. Taylor, 46 Ala. 820; Royce 22 111. App. 652; Beall v. Fisher, 95
V. Burt, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 339; Bays Cal. 568; Whitney v. Phelps, .33 Me.
V. Trulson(Oreg., 1894), 35Pac. Rep. 318: Lindsay v. Garvin, 31 S. C.
26; Ney v. Dubuque, etc. Co., 20 359; Van Evera v. Davis, 51 Iowa,
Iowa, 347. 637.
6 Williams v. Ingell, 21 Pick. "San Joaquin v. Beecher (Cal.,
(Mass.) 388; McMicken v. Com., '58 1894), 35 Pac. Rep. 349.
Pa. St. 213; Crommett v. Pearson, n Welch v. Horton, 73 Iowa, 250;
18 Me. 344 ; Vogler V. Spaugh, 4 Biss. Tracy v. Iron Works, 29 Mo. App.
(U. S.) 288; Carroll v. O'Conuer 343; Howard v. Thompson, 12 Ohio
(Ind., 1894), 35 N. E. Rep. 1006. St. 201 ; Ktiapp v. Marlboro, 29 Vt.
' Jones V. Perkins, 54 Me. 393. 282 ; Pickett v. Ferguson, 45 Ark.
SKelley v. Saltmarsh, 146 Mass. 177.
585;Hancock V. McAvoy(Pa., 1893), 12 Osgood v. Davisj 18 Me. Wfi;
206.']
PAROL OE EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE.
301
tracts to sell real^ or personal property,^ bonds.' charter-par-
ties,* insurance policies/' negotiable instruments," the indorse-
ments thereon,' guaranties,^ licenses,^ releases,^" and contracts
in general.''
§ 206. Interpretation and construction. — If the parties
to a commercial transaction have committed the whole of
their agreement to writing, it may be presumed, according to
well-known commercial and social usages, that the writing
embodies their final contract, and that alT prior or contempo-
raneous oral stipulations or negotiations are merged in it and
superseded by it.'^ The language of the writing is conclusive,
Moorev. Yoss, 1 Cranch (C. C), 179;
Taylor v. Sayre, 24 N. J. L. 6 W ; Gil-
more V. Bangs, 55 Ga. 403.
1 Mickelson v. llevea, 94 N. C. 559 ;
Hubbard v. Marshall, 50 Wis. B23;
Lloyd V. Farrell, 48 Pa. St. 73; Rip-
ley V. Paige, 12 Vt. 353.
^ Union Stock Yards Co, v. Cattle
Co., 59 Fed. Rep. 49; Davis v.
Moody, 15 Ga. 175 ; Belcher v. Mul-
hall, 57 Tex. 17; Procter v. Cole, 66
Ind. 576; Gushing v. Rice, 46 Me.
303; Epping v. Jtfockler, 55 Ga. 376.
3 Barnett v. Barnett, 83 Va. 504 ;
McGooney v. State, 20 Ohio St. 93.
4 The Augustine Kobbe, 37 Fed.
Rep. 696.
5 M. B. L. I. Co. V. Ruse, 8 Ga.
536; Russell v. Russell, 61 Ala. 500;
Lewis V. Thatcher, 15 Mass. 431;
Mayor v. Brooklyn F. I. Co., 3 Abb.
App. Dec. 251 ; Giddings v. Phoenix
Ins. Co., 90 Mo. 272.
6 Burns v. Scott, 117 U. S. 583;
Foy V. Blackstone, 31 111. 538; Cat-
liri V. Harris (Wash., 1894), 35 Pac.
Rep. 385; Anspach v. Bast, 53 Pa.
St. 356 ; Clark v. Hart, 49 Ala. 86 ;
McPherson v. Weston, 85 Cal. 90;
Goddard v. Hill, 33 Me. 583; Camp-
bell V. Upshur, 3 Humph. (Tenu.)
185; Trustees v. Stetson, 5 Pick.
(Mass.) 506; Youngberg v. Nelson
(Minn., 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 029;
Long V. Johnson, 24 N. H. 303.
'Halladay v. Hart, 30 N. Y. 474;
Bartlett v. Lee, 33 Ga. 491 ; Kern v.
Van Phul, 7 Minn. 436; Buckley v.
Bentley, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 283.
8 Lazear v. Union Bank, 53 Md. 78.
9 Ives V. Williams, 50 Mich. 100.
I" Leddy v. Barney, 139 Mass. 394.
"Amer. S. Co. v. Thurber, 131
N. Y. 655; 24 N. E. Rep. 1139; Mitt-
nacht V. Slevin, 67 Hun, 315; Davis
V. Stout (Ind., 1890). 25 N. E. Rep.
862; Stillings v. Tinmis (Mass.,
1890), 35 N. E. Rep. 569; Jennings
V. Moore (Mich., 1890), 47 N. W. Rep.
137; Tarbell v. Farmers' Ins. Co.
(Minn., 1890), 47 N. W. Rep. 153;
Van Horn v. Van Horn (N. J., 1893),
23 Atl. Rep. 1079; Watson v. Miller,
83 Tex. 279; Dexter v. Ohlander, 93
Ala. 441 ; Van Fleet v. Sledge, 45
Fed. Rep. 743; Chase v. Jewett, 37
Me. 351 ; Lyon v. Miller, 24 Pa. St.
392 ; Atkins v. Tompkins, 155 Mass.
256; Vance v. Wood, 83 Greg. 77.
'2pirson v. Arkenbergh, 59 N. Y.
Super. Ct. 574 ; Hardin v. Kelly ( Va.,
1893). 15 S. E. Rep. 894; Taylor v.
Davis, S3 Wis. 455 ; Elevator Co. v.
Towboat Co., 155 Mass. 211; Shel-
mire v. Williams, etc. Co., 68 Hun,
196; Stull V. Thompson, 154 Pa. St.
43 ; Societe v. Sulzer, 138 N. Y. 468 ;
Beall V. Fisher, 95 Cal. 568; Rich-
mond, etc. Co. V. Shomo(Ga., 1893),
16 S. E. Rep. 830. Negotiations are
302 rAEOL OK BXTEINSIC EVIDENCE. [§ 206.
and the only ofBce of the court is to interpret and construe
it so that its actual meaning may be etfectuated.^ ISTor does
it lie in the discretion of the court to ascertain what secret
meaning ma}"^ have been intended, or whether the parties had
any meaning which is not expressed by the language of the
writing itself, unless upon its face it is incomplete and silent
as to some material fact.''
The terms "interpretation" and "construction" are some-
times used interchangeably. The process of interpretation
usually precedes that of construction, and may be defined
with accuracy as the actof finding out the true sense of any
form of words, i. e., the meaning their author intended, and
of enabling others to derive from them the same idea that he
entertained.' By construction is meant the process of draw-
ing conclusions respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct
expressions of the text, from elements known from and given
in the text, *. e., conclusions within the spirit, though not
alwa3'S within the strict letter, of the text* of the writing.
Construction may be liberal, enlarging or restricting the
meaning of the literal language of the writing which is con-
strued, or strict, i. e., confining the application of the words
to such c^ses or objects as are clearly described by the terms
employed. But a liberal construction should not be such as
by the aid of extrinsic evidence forces words out of their
natural signification, or affixes a meaning to them which was
never intended by their author, but only such a fair, just and
reasonable construction as will fully effectuate the instrument
and carry out the intention of the parties thereto.' A reason-
able construction of an instrument, as opposed to one which is
forced, artificial or strained, is such a construction as will
merged in the writing the moment Hardin v. Kelly (Va., 1893), 15 S. B.
a stamped letter assenting to the Rep. 894.
terms is mailed. Darlingcon I. W. "^ See post, % 209.
V. Foote, 16 Fed. Rep. 645; Blake v. Sanderson's Law Diet., citing Lie-
Hamburg-Bremen F. Ins. Co., 67 ber, Herm. 23; 1 Bl. Com. 59; 2 Par-
Tex. 163. See ante, %% 30-39. son's Cont. (7th ed.) 491.
1 Culver V. Wilkinson, 145 U. S. ^Anderson's Law Diet., Lieber, ^
205; National G. L. Co. v. Bixby Herm. 44, H.
(Minn., 1892), 57 N. W. Rep. 217; 'Lawrence v. MeCalmont, 2 How.
Stover V. Rogers, 8 Wash. St. 603; 449; Christ v. Burliugame, 63 Barb.
855.
§ 206.] PAROL OE EXTEINSIC EVIDENCE. 303
most effectually favor and bring about the apparent intention.
If any word or clause has two meanings, the meaning which is
most consonant with the intention of the parties as gathered
from the whole instrument, considered in its entirety, should
be permitted to prevail.' When, however, the language is
reasonably clear, so that the jury can readily understand the
meaning of the instrument, there is no room for construction.
" There should be no construction where there is nothing to
construe."^
The interpretation and construction of writings are gov-
erned by legal rules and are exclusivel}'^ within the province
of the judge.' So far, however, as the whole contract is
incapable of intelligible construction by the court from an
exclusive consideration of its language, that is, so far as ex-
trinsic evidence is necessary to explain its terms or its subject-
matter, to identify the parties, or to show their relations to
each other and the circumstances surrounding them, the mat-
ter is for the jury, who are of course to be guided in their
determination by the principles of law governing the cdnstruc-
tion of contracts laid down by the court, so far as these prin-
ciples are applicable to the actual state of facts found by the
jury.* A writing should be construed in its entirety to ascer-
tain its meaning and effect. If the meaning of written and
printed clauses is contradictory, the meaning of the former
will prevail over that of the latter, on the presumption that,
being more deliberately framed, they represent more accu-
rately the meaning of the parties.^
In the construction of a contract the courts will follow the
construction which the parties to the contract have them-
selves put upon the particular agreement or upon others of a
similar description. If, therefore, a contract is doubtful in its
meaning, evidence is admissible to show how the contracting
parties regarded or construed the writing by pointing out their
1 3 Bl. Com. 296-309, 379-381 ; 2 * Gosper v. Nesbit, 45 Kan. 457 ;
Kent, 432; Tiedeman on Wills, Spragins v. White, 108 N. C. 449;
§§ 171 et seq., 205-311. Deutman v. Kilpatriok, 46 Mo. App.
2 Lewis V. United States, 92 U. S. 634.
621 ; Benn v Hatcher, 81 Va. 34. 5 Boorman v. Johnston, 13 Wend.
3 People's Nat. Gas Co. v. Fidelity D73 ; Webb v. Webb, 29 Ala. 608 ;
Tit. & Trust Co., 24 Atl, Rep. 339; Duffield v. Hue, 129 Pa. St.' 94; Mc-
150 Pa. St. 8. Near v. McComber, 18 Iowa, 7.
304 PAROL OE EXTEINSIC EVIDENCE. [§§ 207, 208.
actions in relation to the subject-matter. "Where, by such ex-
trinsic evidence, a continued course of dealing or acting prior
to the execution of the contract under consideration is es-
tablished, it is very fair to presume that the intention of the
parties Was to adhere, to their usual and ordinary method of
transacting business.'
§ 207. Rule applies only between parties.— "Where a writ-
ing is offered in evidence in an action between persons who
are not parties or privies to it, the rule excluding parol evi-
dence does not apply; and, because it would be extremely un-
just to consider a person bound by language in whose selec-
tion he took no part, they are not prevented from showing
the true meaning of a writing by contradictory oral evidence.^
In a suit between a party and a stranger to a writing, the
former may, unless estopped by bis conduct, contradict the
writing by parol.'
§ 208. Invalidity of writing — Evidence to explain or vary
consideration. — The invalidit^^or legal insufficiency of an in-
strument or of a part of it may be shown by a party by parol.*
' Procter V. Snodgrass, 6 Ohio Cir. Vt. 355; Bruce v. Lumber Co., 87
Ct. Rep. 547; Goneding v. Ham- Va. 3«1 ; Fox v. MaComb. 63 Hun,
moiid, 49 Fed. Rep. 443; Bement v. 633 ; Kellogg v. Thompson, 143 Mass.
Clay brook (Tnd., 1892), 31 N. E. Rep. 76; Reynolds v. Magness, 2 Ired. 26;
556; Davis V. Shafer, 50 Fed. Rep. Talbot v. Willdns, 31 Avk. 411;
704; Hosmer v. McDonald (Ark., Hiissman v. Willsie,' 50 Cal. 250;
1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 963; Leavitt v. Bell v. Woodoian, 60 Me. 465.
Windsor Land & Investment Co., ^Venable v. Thompson, 11 Ala.
54 Fed. Rep. 459; People's Nat. Gas 147. So in a suit for contribution
Co. V. Braddock Wire Co. (Pa., between sureties either of them
1893), 25 Atl. Rep. 749; 155 Pa. St. may vary the terms of a writing to
23; Hammerquist v. Swenson, 44 which the principal is a party.
111. App. 627; Cavazos v. Trevino, 6 Thomas v. Truscotc, 53 Barb. (N. Y.)
Wall. (U. S.) 773. 200; Barry v. Raison, 1 Kernan
2 Randolph v. Junker, 1 Tex. Civ. (N. Y.), 462.
App. 517; Burns v. Thompson, 91 * Hamburg v. Wood, 18 S. W, Rep.
Ind. 146 ; McMaster V. Insurance Co., 623 (Tex., 1893); Blythe v. Gibbons
55N. Y. 223; Sheehy v. Fulton (Neb., (Ind., 1894), 35 N. E. Rep. 557; Lun-
1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 395; Bareda v. day v. Thomas, 36 Ga. 538; Benecia
Silsby, 21 How. (U. S.) 146; Finley Works v. Estes (Cal., 1893), 33 Pac.
V. Bogan, 20 La. Ann. 443; Fant v. Rep. 938; Snyder v Jennings, 15 Neb.
Sprig, 50 Md. 551; Furbush v. God- 373; Corbin v. Sistrunk, 19 AIa.'203;
•win, 25 N. H. 425; Russell v. Carr, Grayson v. Brooks, 64 Miss. 410;
88 Ga. 459; Cunningham v. Minor, Cummings v. Powell (Mo., 1893), 31
56 Ala. 533; Fonda v. Burtan, 63 S. W. Rep. 1079 ; Sherman v. Buick,
§ 208.]
PAROL OE EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE.
305
So it may be shown by parol that the execution of the instru-
ment, whether record, deed or simple contract, was procured
by fraud or duress practiced upon the party ,^ or that he had
been made intoxicated so that he did not fully comprehend
the nature of his act.^
At common law a seal created a conclusive presumption of
a due and valuable consideration, and the parties were es-
topped from denying this, though no consideration was men-
tioned in the instrument.' "Where a writing is not under seal,
and in equity when under seal,* parol evidence is admissible
to vary the consideration, except in the case of negotiable
paper which is in the hands of a lona fide holder for value.'
83 U. S. 209 ; Davis v. Stern, 15 La.
Ann. 177 ; Farrell v. Bean, 10 Md. 217 ;
Dana v. Sessions (Vt., 1893), 26 Atl.
Rep. 585 ; Holbrook v. Burt, 23 Pick.
(Mass.) 546. A judgment may thus
be impeached by parol proof that a
party was not served. Norton v.
Atchison, 30 Pao. Rep. 585.
iKranich v. ShervFOod, 52 N. W.
Rep. 741 J 93 Mich. 397; Wharton v.
Harbison v. Lemon, 3 Blatchf. 51
Dunn V. Amos, 14 Wis. 106; Loftus
V. Maloney (Va., 1893), 16 S. E. Rep,
749; Rottenburgh v. Fowl (N. J.
1893), 26 Atl. Rep. 338.
STiedeman on R. P., §801; Wil
kinson v. Scott, 17 Mass. 257 ; Good-
speed V. Fuller, 46 Me. 141 ; Rock-
well V. Brown, 54- N. Y. 313; Men-
denhall v. Parish, 8 Jones' L. 108
Douglass, 76 Pa. St. 273 ; McKesson Kimball v. Walker, 30 111. 511 ; Wing
V. Sherman, 51 Wis. 303; N.J. Mut. v. Peck, 54 Vt. 245; Trafton v,
L. L Co. V. Baker, 94 U. S. 610 ; Hawes, 102 Mass. 541 ; State v. Gotfc,
■Cooper V. Finke, 38 Minn. 3 ; Thomp-
son V. Bell, 37 Ala. 438 ; Officer v,
Howe, 33 low^,, 143; Vioknair v.
44 Md. 341 ; Storm v. United States,
94 U. -S. 84; Erickson v. Brant
(Minn., 1893),, 55 N. W. Rep. 62
Trosher (La., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 486; Harris v. Harris, 23 Gratt. 737; Lake
Thome v. Trav. Ins. Co., 80 Pa. St. v. Gray, 35 Iowa, 462; Rhine v. El-
15; Univ. Fash. Co. v. Skinner, 64 len, 36 Cal. 362.
Hun, 293; Childs v. Dobbins, 61
Iowa, 109 ; Plant v. Condit, 33 Ark.
454; Ewing v. Smith, 132 Ind. 305
* Levi V. Welsh, 45 N. J. Eq. 867;
Fechheimer v. Trounstine, 13 Colo.
886 ; Lanier v. Faust, 16 S. W. Rep.'
Willis V.Kern, 21 La. Ann. 749. Bald- 994; Ewing v. Wilson (Ind., 1893),
win V. Burrows, 95 Ind. 81 ; Gross v.
Drager, 66 Wis. 150 ; Depue v. Sar-
geant, 21 W. Va. 336. Parol evi-
31 N. E. Rep. 64; 132 Ind. 600.
sVolkenan v. Drum, 154 Pa. St.
616; Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass.
■dence is received to show that a deed 27; Terry v. Danville, etc. Co., 91
was delivered and whether the de-
livery was absolute or in escrow.
Adams v. Morgan, 150 Mass. 148.
2 Johnson v. Phifer, 6 Neb. 401;
Lavette v. Sage, 29 Conn. 577 ; Fet-
rill V. Fetrill, 5 Jones' Eq. 61;
N. C. 236 ; Silvers v. Potter, 48 N. J.
Eq. 539; Rabsuhl v. Lack, 35 Mo.
316; Tutwiler v. Munford, 68 Ala.
134; Rhine v. Ellen, 36 Cal. 363;
King v. Woodruff, 23 Conn. 56;
Howell V. Moores, 137 111. 86; Bragg
Schramm v. O'Conner, 98 111. 539; v. Standford, 83 Ind. 324; Wheeler
20
306
PAEOL OE EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
[§ 208.
Where the validity of an instrument is impeached upon the
ground of fraud, the courts are disposed to grant a wide lati-
tude in this respect.' Thus, the invalidity,^ illegality ' or im-
morality* of the consideration raa}'^ be shown by parol in an
action between the immediate parties to the contract. So in
a proceeding by the grantor to recover the purchase-money,
the real, consideration may be shown by parol evidence.*
Parol evidence is admissible to show an additional or further
consideration to that expressed,* and the additional coneidera-
tion which is thus shown need not always be consistent in
character with the consideration which is recited in the writ-
ing.' "Where the writing is silent as to consideration, oral
evidence is admissible to prove that a consideration passed
and to show its character and extent.'
V. Billings, 38 N. Y. 263 ; Fraley v.
Bentley, 1 Dak. 25 ; Bailey v. Corn-
well, 66 Mich. 107 ; Leach v. Shelby,
58 Miss. 681 ; Sayre v. Burdick, 47
Minn. 367; Kidder v. Vandersloat,
114 111. 130; Pomeroy v. Bailey, 43
N. H. 118; Barbee v. Barbee, 109
N. C. 299; Cake v. Bank, 116 Pa. St.
264; Fechheimer v. Trounstine, 13
Colo. 386; Louisville R. E. Co. v.
Neafus (Ky., 1892), 18 S. W. Rep.
1030; Bruce v. Slemp, 83 Ya. 357;
Pierce v. Brew, 43 Vt. 292 ; Wooster
V. Simonson, 20 Fed. Rep. 316 ; Stiles
V. .Giddens, 21 Tex. 783; Green v.
Batson, 71 Wis. 57; Hall v. Solo-
mon, 61 Conn. 476; Hunter v. La-
^nius, 83 Tex. 677. "A considera-
tion is something esteemed in law
as of value in exchange for which a
promise is made." Bishop, Cont.,
§38.
1 Clinton v. Estes, 20 Ark. 216;
Cunningham v. Dyer, 23 Md. 219;
Fall V. Glover, 34 Neb. 522; 52 N,
W. Rep. 168.
2 See cases in last note.
8Fenwick v. RatcIifEe, 6 T. B.
Mon. (Ky.) 154; Cozard v. Hinman,
6 Bosw. 8; N. E. Mortg. Co. v. Gay,
33 Fed. Rep. 636; Martin v. Clarke,
8 R. I. 389; Russell v. De Grand, 15
Mass. 35 ; Ross v. Sagbeer, 21 Wend.
106.
* Lazare v. Jacques, 15 La. Ann.
599.
5 McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend.
465; Rhine v. Ellen, 36 Cal. 362.
epenn. Co. v. Dolan (Ind., 1890),
32 N. E. Rep. 802; Hill v. Whidden
(Mass,, 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 536;- Fer-
ris V. Hard, 135 N. Y. 354; Pierce-^'.
Brew, 43 Vt. 295 ; Parker v. Foy, 43
Miss. 260 ; Harper v. Perry, 28 Iowa,
63; Paige v. Sherman, 6 Gray, 511;
Rabsuhl v. Lack, 30 Mo. 316; Castor
V. Fry, 33 W. Va. 449 ; Tiedeman on
R. P., §801.
t Bristol Sav. Bank v. Stiger (Iowa,
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 265; Penn. Co.
V. Dolan (Ind., 1893), 52 N. E. Rep.
802; Hill v. Whidden, supra; Mo-
bile Sav. Bank v. McDonnell (Ala.,
1891), 8 S. Rep. 137; Martin v. Stub-
bings, 126 111. 387 ; Diven v. John-
son, 117 Ind. 512. Where evidence
of a different consideration would
make a new contract for the parties
it should be excluded. Stillings v.
Timmins, 152 Mass. 147; 25 N. E.
Rep. 50 ; Langan v. Langan, 89 Cal.
186; 26Pao. Rep. 794.
8 Trustees v. Saunders (Wis., 1893y,
§ 209.]
PAEOL OE EXTBINglO EVIDENCE.
307
§ 209. Incomplete and collateral writings. — Where on
inspecting a written contract it appears incomplete, so that it
does not represent the final intentio'n of the parties in lan-
guage chosen by them, parol evidence is admissible to supply
omissions and ascertain the actual intention on those particu-
lar points regarding which the written agreement is silent.'
So parol evidence is admissible to supply a date in an ac-
knowledgment of a debt;^ to show the purpose of certain
minor stipulations;' to fix the time of performance,* or to
show a parol contract or a conversation referred to in the
writing.' But an omission cannot be supplied in a writing
which is required by the statute of frauds.* And the opera-
Mc-
54 N. W. Rep. 1094; Guidery v.
Green, 95 Cal. 630; Dorsey v. Ha-
gard, 5 Mo. 420; Miller v. Fecht-
born, 31 Pa. St. 253; Macomb v.
Wilkinson (Mich., 1890), 47 N. W.
Eep. 336; Finlayson v. Finlayson,
17 Oreg. 347; Goodwin v. Fox, 129
U. S. 601 ; Bruce v. Slemp, 83 Va.
853; Rankin v. Wallace (Ky., 1890),
14 S. W. Rep. 79; Halpin v. Stone,
78 Wis. 183; 47 N. W. Rep. 177;
Nichols V. Burch, 128 Ind. 324; 37
N. E. Rep. 737. In McCrea v. Pur-
mort, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 473; 30 Ajn.
Dec. 108, Justice Cowian thus ex-
pounds the truerule on this subject :
"A party is estopped by his deed.
He is not permitted to contradict it
so far as the deed is intended to pass
a right, or to be the exclusive evi-
dence of a contract. The principle
goes no further. A deed is not con-
clusive evidence of everything it
may contain. For instance, it is not
the only evidence of the date of its
execution, nor is its omission of a
consideration conclusive evidence
that none passed; nor is its,acknowl-
edgment of a particular considera-
tion an objection to other proof of
another and consistent considera-
tion."
1 Smith V. Wood (Ind., 1833), 33
N. E. Rep. 931 ; Woolworth v. Mc-
Pherson, 55 Fed. Rep. 558;
Grath v. Mongels, 30 N. Y. S. 869 ;
Kreuzberger v. Wingfield, 96 Cal.
251 ; Chapin v. Cambria S. Co., 145 Pa.
St. 578; Ostrander v. Snyder, 36 N.
Y. S. 263; Edwards Co. v. Baker, 3
N. D. 289; Bretts v. Levine (Minn.,
1893), 53 N. W. Eep. 535; Work v.
Beach, 139 N. Y. 651 ; Crane v. Li-
brary Ass'n, 39 N. J. L. 303 ; Barclay
V. Hopkins, 59 Ga. 563; Bank v.
Cooper, 137 U. S. 473; Brown v.
Bowen, 90 Mo. 184; Webster v. Hodg-
kins, 35 N. H. 128; Winn v. Cham-
berlain, 33 Vt. 318 : Equator M. & S.
Co. V. Gunella (Colo., 1893), 33 Pac.
Eep. 613; Holmes v. Anderson, 59
Tex. 481 ; Donlin v. Daeglin, 80 III.
608; Si vers v. Sivers (Cal., 1893), 33
Pac. Rep. 571 ; Hawkins v. Lee, 8
Lea (Tenn.), 43. The question
whether the contract is complete is
for the jury. Thomas v. Barnes, 31
N. E. Rep. 683; 56 Mass. 581.
^ Mancheste;: v. Brodner, 107'N. Y.
349.
3 Equator Co. v. Gunella (Colo.,
1893), 83 Pac. Rep. 613.
* Sivers v. Sivers (Cal., 1893), 32
Pac. Eep. 571.
6 Nork V. Beach, 129 N. Y. 621.
"Runger v. Holtzclaw, 113 Mo.
519. See post, %2U.
308 PAEOL OB EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE. [§ 210.
tion of this rule is strictly confined to unintentional omissions,
and does not permit the introduction of parol evidence to ef-
fectuate a writing which is wholly void because of uncer-
tainty.* Nor is parol evidence admissible if the writing can
by construction be given a reasonable meaning though some
words have been omitted.^ So it has been held that the oral por-
tion of the contract is only admissible if the writing describes
the subject-matter with binding force, and the oral part re-
fers to collateral matters alone.' The existence of a memo-
randum of a transaction, as a bill of parcels, will not exclude
parol evidence of the real contract where the memorandum
is not meant to be regarded as a contract containing the com-
plete intention of the parties.*
§ 210. Parol evidence to connect and explain contempo-
raneous writings. — Two or more instruments evidencing the
same transaction should be construed together. To enable
the court to do this, parol evidence is admissible to show
which was adopted as binding by the parties," or to connect
them if the connection does not appear upon their face;^ and
particularly if they are contradictory in terms,' or if on com-
parison of the instruments certain clauses are found to be
omitted' from either. If a writing clearly refers to another,
the latter will be admissible to explain it. The earlier deed
or instrument by such reference becomes incorporated in the
later to the same extent as though inserted in the subsequent
iMcGuire v. Stevens, 43 Miss. 474; 5 Hill v. Miller^ 76 N. Y. 33; Nor.
Walrath v. Whitlelcind, 36 Kan. 483 ; M. Co. v. McAlister, 40 Mich. 84.
Harvey V. Lumber Co., 39 Mo. App. 6 1 Greenl. Ev., §283; Wichita
214. University v. Schweiter, 50 Kan.
2Loonoy v. Rankin, 15 Oreg. 617. 673; Thomson v. Beal, 48 Fed. Eep.
3 Chapin v. Dobson, 78 N. Y. 74. 614 ; Myers v. Munson, 65 Iowa, 423 ;
■1 Deshon v. Insurance Co., 11 Met. Tuley v. Barton, 79 Va. 387; Lee v.
(Mass.) 199; Perrine v. Cooley, 39 N. Church, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 116; Gilbert
J. L. 449; Kreuzberger v. Wing- v. Duncan, 29 N. J. L. 133, 521;
field, 96 Cal. 351 ; Thomas v. Barnes, Eager v. Crawford, 76 N. Y. 97 ;
156 Mass. 581; Robinson v. Mulder, Cullen v. Benim, 37 Ohio St. 326.
81 Mich. 75; Chapin v. Cambria 'Payson v. Lampson, 134 Mass.
Iron Co., 145 Pa. St. 478; Millet v. 593.
Marston, 62Me. 477; Cone'v. Cone, 8 Holt v. Pie, 120 Pa. St. 425;
107 Mass. 285; Smith v. Coleman, 77 Deery v. Cray, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 263;
Wis. 343. Wilspn v. Tucker, 10 R. L 578;
Maxted v. Seymour, 56 Mich, 129.
§ 211.]
PAROL OE EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE.
309
deed.' The same principle is applicable to a deed containing
references to maps or plats, which must be consulted and are
admissible to ascertain the location of the monuments which
constitute the boundaries of the land convej'ed.^ In the case
of documents referred to in wills, which are required to be
attested, it. has been held that to admit their incorporation in
the will they must be referred to as in existence when the will
is executed^ and the document may then be shown by parol
evidence to be identical with that referred to.*
§ 211. Receipts. — "A receipt may be defined as such a
written acknowledgment by one person of his having received
money or goods from another as will he prima facie evidence
of that fact in a court of law." ' Parol evidence is generally
admissible to explain or vary the meaning or purpose of a
simple written receipt.* If the writing, however, constitutes
1 Tiedeman on R. P., § 841 ; White-
head V. Rogers, 106 Mo. 331 ; Camp-
bell V. Morgan, 68 Hun, 490 ; Perry
V. Binney, 103 Mass. 153; Vance v.
Fare, 24 Cal. 444; Overend v.
Menezer, 83 Tex. 153; McAfee v.
Arline, 83 Ga. 645 ; Knight v. Dyer,
57 Me. 176; Lippitt v. Kelly, 46 Vt.
533 ; Rupert v. Penner, 35 Neb. 587.
The deed referred to need not be re-
corded. Simmons v. Johnson, 14
"Wis. 536; Caldwell v. Center, 30 Cal,
543.
2 Tiedeman on R. P., § 841 ; Cham-
berlain V. Bradley, 101 Mass. 191;
St. Louis V. Miss. P. R. Co. (Mo.,
1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 303; Fox v.
Union Co., 109 Mass. 893; Bohier v.
Lange, 44 Minn. 381 ;Redd v. Murry,
34 Pao. Rep. 341; 93 Cal. 48; White-
head V. Ragan, 106 Mo. 331; Bir-
mingham V. Anderson, 48 Pa. St.'
853; Plummer v. Gould, 98 Mich. 1 ;
Spiller V. Scribner, 36 Vt. 347; Chap-
man V. Polaok, 70 Cal. 487 ; Frost v.
Cattle Co., 81 Tex. 505.
3 Nowton V. Seamen's Fr. Soc, 130
Mass, 91 ; Brown v, Clark, 77 N. Y.
360; Baker's Appeal, 107 Pa. St. 881;
Tonnele, etc. v. Hall, 4 Comst. 145;
In re Sober, 78 Cal. 477 ; Cliambers
V, McDaniel, 8 Rich. Eq. 305 ; Harvey
V. Chouteau, 14 Mo. 587 ; Johnson v.
Clarkson, 3 Rich. Eq. 305 ; Thayer v.
Wellington, 9 Allen, 383 ; In re Lam-
bert's Estate, 10 Pa. Co.' Ct. R. 10;
In re Sunderland, 1 P. & D. 198;
Allen V. Maddock, 11 Moore P. C.
437, 454 ; Von Stanbenzee v. Monck,
33 L. J. Prob. 31 ; In re Barber, W.
N. 1879, p. 141.
* Pollock V. Glassell, 3 Gratt. 439 ;
Barley v. Barley, 7 Jones, 44 ; Zim-
merman V. Zimmerman, 33 Pa. St.
375; Crosby v. Mason, 33 Conn. 483;
Fesler V. Simpson, 58 Ind. 83.
SQrimke, J., in Kegg v. State, 7
Ohio St. 79. As to the conclusive-
ness of receipts per se as evidence,
see State v. Branch, 113 Mo. 661.
^Schwersenski V. Vineberg, 19 Can.
S. C. R. 343; Osborn v. Stringham
'(S. D., 1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 776;
Oakley v. State, 40 Ala. 393 ; Han-
cock v. Moody, 39 III. App. 17 ; State
V. McBonald, 43 N. J. L. 591 ; Bus-
well V. Pioneer, 37 N. Y. 313; Fire
Ass'n V. Wiokham, 141 U. S. 564;
310
PAKOL OE EXTEINSIC EVIDENCE.
[§ 212.
or contains a complete contract, as when it contains stipula-
tions prescribing how the money is to be expended, parol evi-
dence is inadmissible to vary its terms, so far as it is a con-
tract,* though it may assume the form of a receipt.^
§ 212. Independent parol contracts and conditions pre-
cedent.— These generally may be shown by parol when con-
temporaneous and consistent with the writing, and founded
on a distinct consideration,^ or when the consideration of the
oral collateral contract is the performance of the written one.''
Richardson v. Beede, ^3 Me. 161;
Lane v. Johnson, 59 Vt. 837 ; Hill v.
Durand, 58 Wis. 160; Prairie Sch.
Twp. V. Haselen (N. D., 1893), 55 N.
W. Rep. 938; Bell v. Utiey, 17 Mich.
508; Chapman v. Sutton, 68 Wis.
657; Catoe v. Catoe, 33 S. C. 595;
Lowe V. Thompson, 86 Ind. 503;
Texas M. L. Ins. Co. v. Davidge, 51
Tex. 344; McKinnie v. Harvey, 38
Minn. 18; Dunn v. Pipes, 30 La.
Ann, 376 ; Badger v. Jones, 13 Pick.
(Mass.) 371; McFadden v. Railway
Co., 92 Mo. 313; Chapin v. Chicago,
etc. Co. (Iowa, 1890), 44 N. W. Rep.
830; Marse v. Rice (Neb., 1893), 54
N. W. Rep. 308 ; Dunagan v. Duna-
gan, 38 Ga. 554; Calhoun v. Rich-
ardson, 30 Coun. 310 ; Knox v. Bar-
bee, 8 Bibb (Ky.), .536; Edgerly v.
Emerson, 33 N. H. 555. Whether
the receipt is an official acknowledg-
ment or a receipt under seal, as in a
deed of conveyance, is immaterial.
Brown v. Oabalin, 3 Greg. 45.
1 Smith V. Holland, 61 N. Y. 635.
^Fossack V. Moody, 39 111. App.
17; Thompson v. Williams, 80 Kan.
114; Carpenter v. Jamieson, 75 Mo.
285 ; Alcorn v. Morgan, 77 Ind. 184 ;
Tarbell v. Farmers' Mut. El. Co., 44
Minn. 471; Goodwin ^r. Goodwin, 59
N. H. 548 ; Van Etten v. Newton, 8
N. Y. S. 478; Young v. Cook, 15 La.
Ann. 136; James v. Bligh, 11 Allen
(Mass.), 4; Fowler v, Richardson, 33
111. App. 353; Harrison v. Bank, 17
Wis. 340; Wood v. Whiting, 21
Barb. 190; Egleston v. Knicker-
bocker, 6 Barb. 458 ; Graves v. Dud-
ley, 30 N. Y. 76; Querry v. White, 1
Bibb (Ky.), 271 ; Sessions v. Gilbert,
1 Vt. 75. Thus, for example, a re-
ceipt for goods on storage or depos-
ited as collateral for a loan, consti-
tuting a contract of bailment, cannot
be varied by parol. Wadsworth v.
Alcott, 6 N. Y. 64; Stapleton v. King,
33 lowaj 28.
3 Michigan M. L. Ins. Co. v. Will-
iams, 155 Pa. St. 405; Bagley &
Sewall Co. v. Saranac B. P. Co., 135
N. Y. 626; Guidery v. Green, 95 Cal.
630; Babcock v. Deford, 14 Kan.
408 ; Whitney v. Shippen, 89 Pa. St.
33; Andrews v. Brewster, 134 N. Y.
433; Buzzell v. Willard', 44 Vt. 44;
Laraphire v. Slaughter, 61 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 86; Snow v. Allen, 151 Mass.
51. This Exception is thus stated by
Sir James Stephen : " The existence
of any separate oral agreement as to
any matter on which a document is
silent, and which is not inconsistent
with, its terms, may be shown, if
from the circumstances of the case
the court infers that the parties did
not intend the document to be a
complete and final statement of the
whole of the transaction between
them." See Dig. Ev., art. 90.
4 Kelly v. Carter, 55 Ark. 113.
§ 212.]
PAEOL OK EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE.
311
Thus, a verbal warranty in connection with a sale in writing; ^
an agreement to pay a commission for procuring a sale of
land,^ or for obtaining a charter for a vessel;' or a condition
that a written agreement shall not go into effect unless a cer-
tain event shall happen,* or that a policy taken in a party's
name was only a security for a debt ; ' a verbal contract to re-
build in connection with a written lease ; * an agreement that
a mortgagor may continue in possession under a chattel mort-
gage,' or an agreement by the oblige^ in a deed to receive in
payment a note of a third party,' or an agreement by a grantor
to grade a street," may all be shown by parol where such in-
dependent oral contract does not contradict the language of
the written agreement. But where the effect of the collateral
parol agreement is to make an entirely new contract out of
the written contract, parol evidence is not admissible.^" But
a contemporaneous independent parol contract, the perform-
ance of which is a condition precedent to the creation of a
binding obligation under a written agreement, may be shown."
1 CoUette V. Weed, 68 Wis. 428.
2Huckabee v. Shepherd, 75 Ala.
342.
' Weber v. Kingsland, 8 Bosw. 415.
* Humphreys v. Raih-oad Co., 88
Va. 431.
» Zabel V. Nyenhuis, 83 Iowa, 750.
« Gumming v. Barber, 99 N. C.
333.
7 Pierce v. Stevens, 30 Me. 184.
SMurchie v. Cook, 1 Ala. 41.
9 Durkin v. Cobleigh, 30 N. E. Rep.
474.
10 Miller Ins. Co. v. ^inneard, 35
111. App. 105; Blair v. Buttolph, 73
Iowa, 31 ; Timms v. Sherman, 19
Md. 296; Keeley v. Oliver (N. C,
1898), 18 S. E. Rep. 698 ; Hubbard v.
Greeley, 84 Me. 340 ; Gerard v. Cow-
perthwait, 21 N. Y. S. 1092; Lathrop
v. Foster, 51 Me. 367; Still v. Tomp-
kins, 154 Pa. St. 43; Richards v.
Day, 63 Hun, 685 ; Ha worth v. Nor-
ris, 28 Fla. 763 ; Frost v. Blanchard,
97 Mass. 155 ; Woodward v. Foster,
18 N. y. S. 827; McLeod v. Skiles,
81 Mo. 595; Trent v. Fletcher, 100
Ind. 105 ; Bishop v. Dillard, 49 Ark.
285; Barclay v. Pursley, 110 Pa. St.
13. So oral evidence will not be re-
ceived to attach a condition to an
absolute promise to pay in writing.
Allen V. Furbish, 4 Gray, 504 ; Bil-
lings V. Billings, 10 Cush. 178, 182 ;
Ridgway v. Bowman, 7 Cush, 268.
"Corn v. Rosenthal (N. Y., 1893),
1 Misc. Rep. 168 ; Black v. Shreve, 13
N. J. Eq..455; Badcock v. Steadman,
1 Root (Conn.), 87; Humphreys v.
Railroad Co., 13 S. E. Rep. 985 ; Ben-
ton V. Martin, 52 N. Y. 570 ; Juillard
V. Chaffee, 92 N. Y. 535 ; Michels v.
Olmstead, 14 Fed. Rep. 219-; Pierce
V. Tedwell, 81 Ala. 299; Jordan v.
Loftin, 13 Ala. 547; Minchin v.
Minchin (Mass., 1893), 32 N. E. Rep.
164; Watkins v. Bowers, 119 Mass.
383; Wilson v. Powers, 131 id. 539;
Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn.
313; Sweet v. Stevens, 7 R. I. 875;
Cuthrell v. Cuthrell, 101 Ind. 375;
Robinson v. Evans, 3 S, C. 835;
312 PAEOL OB EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE. [§§ 213, 214r.
§ 213. To establish implied, resulting or constructive
trust. — By statute it is a universal rule that express trusts
in real property must be evidenced by some writing,' though
it should not be understood that the trust must be created by
a written instrument. The writing is only needed for its
proof, and is regarded simply as an admission of its existence.
Parol evidence will not be received to supply what has been
omitted from the writing. This rule, however, applies only
to express trusts. Im'plied, constructive and resulting trusts
in real property may be created by parol. ^ So where a deed
is absolute upon its face, parol evidence is admissible, though
it should be clear and satisfactory,' to show that the consid-
eration was paid by a person other than the grantee, and to
establish a resulting trust in favor of the party paying the
consideration.* But a grantor in an absolute deed will not be
permitted to show that a trust was intended in his favor,
though a third party paying the consideration, may do so.'
§ 214. Discharge, modification or extension of contract
may be shown. — A writing under seal cannot be discharged
or satisfied by an instrument of an inferior character.* But
a simple contract may be orally rescinded or dissolved if no
breach of its conditions has occurred, and this oral discharge
or rescission may be shown by extrinsic evidence,' even where
Wendlinger v. Smith, 75 Va. 309. v. Brison, 75 Cal. 525. In a few
But the evidence of such parol agree- cases parol evidence has been ad-
ment must be clear, precise and sat- mitted to establish an active result-
isfactory. Thomas v. Loose, 114 Pa. ing trust. Barker v. Prentiss, 6 Mass.
St. 45; 114 id. 170; Cake v. Potts 430; Brown v. Isbell, 11 Ala. 1009.
Bank, 116 id. 270. SLawson v. Lawson, 117 111.98;
1 See post, § 264. Gerry v. Stimpson, 60 Me. 186 ;
2 Tiedeman on Equity, g§ 308-313, Whyte v. Arthur, 17 N. J. Eq. 531.
and post, § 364. * As to what constitutes a seal and
2 Green v. Dietrich, 114 111. 636 ; its necessity, see Tiedeman on E. P.,
Woodward v. Sibert, 83 Va. 441 ; § 808, where the authorities are fully
Catoe V. Catoe, 33 S. 0. 595; 10 S. E. cited; 2 Bl. Com. 305-6.
Kep. 1078 ; Hoover v. Hoover, 129 ' Brownfield's Ex'r v. Brownfield,
Pa. St. 201. 151 Pa. St. 565; Whitcher v. Shat-
« Borst V. Nalle, 38 Gratt. (Va.) tuck, 8 Allen (Mass.), 545 ; Marsh v.
433 ; Von Trotha v. Bamberger, 15 Bellew, 45 Wis. 39 ; Davis v. Good-
Colo. 1 ; Leakey v. Gunter, 25 Tex. rich, 45 Vt. 36 ; Page v. Einstein, 7
400; Hudson v. White, 17 E. I. 519: Jones (N. C), 147; Tucker v. Tucker
Larman v. Knight, 140 III. 133; (Ind., 1887), 13 N. E. Eep. 710; Estes
Rank v. Grote, 110 N. Y. 13; Brison v. Fry, 94 Mo. 266; Sessions v. Peay,
§ 214.} PAKOL OK EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE. 313
t
'*.
a writing is by the statute of frauds made essential to the
validity of the original agreement.' Not only may the express
annulment or abandonment of a written contract be thus
orally shown, but a subsequent oral contract founded on a fresh
consideration, operating either as a modification or limitation
of the former written contract or as a substitute for it, may
be shown by parol.'' Under this rule parol evidence has been
received to show that the parties have consented to a change
in the time, place and manner of performance; that a new
or different consideration has been 'agreed upon, and that the
promisor has agreed to do something wholly different from
what was mentioned in the writing.' If a written contract
has been lost its contents may be proved by parol when a
new and different parol contract has been made in its place.*
An oral extension of the time of performance made prior to a
breach of the contract may be shown, and it is immaterial
whether the writing was sealed ^ or not, or whether it was a
contract within thp statute of frauds.^ But oral evidence is
never admissible to show a subsequent material verbal modi-
fication of the terms of any agreement which under the stat-
ai Ark. 400 ; Harrington v. Samples. Cobb v. O'Neal, 8 Sneed (Tenn.),
36 Minn. 200- Arnold v. Arnold, 20 438; HoUoway v. Frick (Pa., 1898),
Iowa, 373 ; Medomack v. Curtis, 24 24 Atl. Rep. 201 ; Worrell v. Forsyth
Me. 36; Fowler v. Smith, 153 Pa. St. (111., 1892), 30 N. E. Rep. 673; Flan-
639 (satisfaction of judgment). ders t. Fay, 40 Vt. 316 ; Thompson
1 Buell V. Miller 4 N. H. 196 ; v. Locke, 65 Iowa, 429 ; Bannon v.
Cummings V. Arnold, 3 Mete. 486; Aultman, 80 Wis. 307; Cartwright
Vanderlin v. Hovis, 152 Pa. St. 11. v. Clopton, 25 Ga. 85.
^ 2 Frick V. Mill Co, (Kan., 1893), 32 ^Shapt v. Wyckoif, 39 N. J. Eq.
Pac. Rep. 1103 ; Richardson V. Hooper, 376; Mead v. Parker, 111 N. Y. 259
13 Pick. 446 ; Delacroix v. Bulkley, Walker v. Camp, 63 Iowa, 627
18 Wend. 71 ; Nashua, etc. Co. v. Cummings v. Putnam, 19 N. H. 569
'Boston, etc. Corp., 81 N. E. Rep. Danforth v. Molntire, 11 111. App.
1060 (Mass., 1893); Munroe v. Perk- 417, and cases supra.
ins, 9 Pick. 298 ; Raymond v. Kraus- * Walker v. B. Wilmington, etc.
kopf (Iowa, 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. Co., 26 S. C. 80.
482; Vanderlin v. Hovis, 152 Pa. St. ^ Branch v. Wilson, 12 Fla, 543.
11 ; Strauss v. Gross (Tex., 1893), 21 6 steams v. Hall, 9 Cush. (Mass.)
S. W. Rep. 305; Stallings v. Gotts- 31; Mead v. Parker, 111 N. Y. 259;
chalk (Md.,, 1893), 26 Atl. Rep. 524; Grace v. Lynch, 80 Wis. 166; Bige-
Janney v. Brown, 36 La. Ann. 118; low v. Capen, 145 Mass. 273 (renewal
Piatt V. United States, 32 Wall. 498 ; of note).
Creamer V, Stevenson, 15 Md, 111;
314: PAEOL OE EXTEINSIC EVIDENCE. [§ 215.
ute of frauds is required to be in writing, as a new verbal
contract under such conditions would be inoperative.^ The
date of the execution of an instrument when inserted in the
writing is always open to explanation, unless the date of exe-
cution is an essential element of the contract itself, when to
show a different date would be to make a new parol contract
for the parties.^ The date as given is presumed to be correct'
until the contrary is shown.* So, too, a date which has been
omitted may be supplied by parol.'
§ 2 1 5. To relbut presumptions. — If a presumption of law is
customarily drawn from certain language employed in a writ-
ten instrument, parol evidence is admissible to rebut this pre-
sumption by showing that in this particular instance the inten-
tion of the party was that the usual inference should not follow.
So it is presumed where two legacies of the same amount are
bequeathed to one person for the same purpose that the tes-
tator does not intend that they shall be cumulative. Under
such circumstances parol evidence is admissible, not to vary
the will, but to show that the testator intended that the earlier
legacy should not be satisfied by the later, and that the ben-
eficiary should take both. In other words, extrinsic evidence
is admitted to show that the will as it stands speaks the true
intent of the testator.^ So parol evidence is admissible to
rebut a resulting trust which arises in favor of the heirs of
the testator, on the failure or lapse of a devise,'' and to
iDana v. Hancock, 30 Vt. 616; John v. Am. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 2
Low V. Ti-eadwell, 13 Me. 441; Hill Duer (N. Y.), 415.
V. Blake, 97 N. Y. 216; Whittier v. SBurditt v. Hunt, 25 Me. 419.
Dana, 10 Allen, 326 ; Jamison v, 6 Clendonning v. Clymer, 17 Ind.
Ludlow, 3 La. Ann. 492; Adler v. 155; Paine v. Parsons, 14 Pick. 313;
Friedman, 16 Cal. 138 ; Marsh v. Bel- De witt v. Yates, 10 Johns. 150 ; Cecil
lew, 41 Wis. 39; Hill v. Blake, 97 v. Cecil, 20 Md. 153; Hine v. Hine,
N. Y. 216. Thus, parol evidence 39 Barb. 507; Russell v. Stanbyn, 16'
of a general warranty is not admis- Moak's Eng. 818 ; Sims v. Sims, 2
sible to vary the terms of a deed Stockton Ch. 153; Jones v. Mason,
containing a limited warranty only. 5 Rand. (Va.) 577; Timberlake v.
Raymond v. Raymond, 10 Cush. Parish, 5 Dana, 346.
(Mass.) 134. 'McCure v. Evans, 29 Beav. 432;
2 Draper v. Snow, 20 N. Y. 331; Powell v. Manson, 3 Mason, 347;
Ellis V. Bank, 7 How. (U. S.) 294 ; Bar- Stark v. Canady, 3 Litt. 399 : Mann
low V. Buckingham, 68 Iowa, 169. v. Mann, 14 Johns. 1 ; Reynolds v.
3 Cowing V. Altman, 71 N. Y. 433. Robinson, 82 N. Y. 103; Sture v.
« Foster v. Beals, 21 N. Y. 347 ; St. Sture, 5 Johns. Ch. 1,
§ 215.] ' PAROL OE EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE. 315
show that a legacy by a parent to a child is not in satisfac-
tion of a portion due him.^ Where a parent or other person
standing in loco parentis makes a pecuniary provision for a
child either in land or money, which is not made for the pur-
pose of providing for the education of the latter or which is
not a mere gift to him, the law will presume that it was in-
tended as an advancement pro tanto of what the child would
take on the death of the person either by the statutes of de-
scent or distribution or by devise from the latter. If the ad-
vancement is to be deducted from a devise by will, then parol
evidence is admissible, including the declarations of the tes-
tator, to rebut tht presumption that the gift was an advance-
ment and that the devise is thereby satisfied.^ If, on the
other hand, the person in loco parentis dies intestate, parol
evidence may be received to rebut this presumption where
the "gift or advancement consisted of land the transfer of
which is evidenced by a writing,' or where a note or other
evidence of indebtedness is given by the child to the parent,*
or where thti advancement to the child is entered in the books
of the parent in the form of a charge against the former.
The presumption of delivery ^ by the grantor or of accept-
ance by the grantee' which arises when a properly executed
deed is found in the latter's possession may be rebutted by
parol evidence that the deed was not intended to be deliv-
eTed or that the grantee was ignorant of the conveyance.''
1 Smith V. Condor, 9 Ch. D. 170; Lamb, 13 N. J. Eq. 116; Little v.
Lacon v. Lacon, W. N. 1891, p. 25; Gilson, 39 N. H. 505: Morris v. Hen-
Hine v. Hine, 39 Barb. 507 May v. derson, 37 Miss. 501 ; Faulkner v.
May, 28 Ala. 141 ; Rogers v. French, Adams, 136 Ind. 459 ; Mayor v. Todd,
19 Ga. 316; Nolan v. Bolton, 25 id. 84 Mich. 85; Ford v. James, 2 Abb. ■
353; Latigdon V. Astor, 16N. Y. 34; Pr. 162; Wolverton v. Collins,- 34
Richard v. Humphreys, 15 Pick. 1 39 ; Iowa, 238.
Miner v. Atherton, 35 Pa. St. 538. epeavey v. Tilton, 18 N. H. 153;
2 See cases in last note. Tompkins v. Wheeler, 16 Pet. 119;
3 Phillips V. Chappell, 16 Ga. 16; Fonda v. Sage, 46 Barb. 109; St.
Sayles V. Baker, 5 R. L 457 ; Miller's Louis, etc. Co. v. Ruddell (Ark.,
Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 337; Scott v. Scott, 1890), 13 S. W. Rep. 418; Dikeman
1 Mass. 537. v. Arnold, 78 Mich. 455 ; 44 N. W.
< Tillotson V. Race, 33 N. Y. 137. Rep. 407.
* Tiedeman on R. P., g 813 ; Adams " See Tiedeman on Real Property,
V. Frye, 5 Mete. 109; Roberts v. §§813,818.
Jackson, 1 Wend. 478; Black v.
316
PAEOL on EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE.
[§ 216.
§ 2 1 6. To show usage. — The general and uniform doing
of a certain act is denominated usage. Though the word is
sometimes employed as synonymous with " custom," a distinc-
tion in meaning, may be noted. "Usage is the fact; custom
the law. There may be usage without custom; there can be
no custom without usage to precede it. Usage consists in a
repetition of acts; custom arises out of this repetition.'"
Well-recognized, long-established usages and customs preva-
lent in the locality where a contract is made or a will or deed
executed are presumed to be known to the parties and to be
present in their minds when the instrument is executed.*
Where no express direction to the contrary exists, parol evi-
dence of usage is admissible to ascertain the intention of the
parties or explain the nature and subject-matter of the instru-
ment or the meaning of its terras, wherever ambiguity or obscu-
rity exists upon these subjects.' On the other hand, where the
language is clear and free from doubt, and no ambiguity or
uncertainty is found, parol evidence of custom is not to be
received to control or vary the stipulations of the instrument.*
1 Cutter V. Waddingham, 33 Mo.
384; Power v. Bowdle (N. D., 1893),
54 N. W. Rep. 410, citing Wharton
OQEvid.,410.
2 Howard v. Walker (Tenn., 1893),
21 S. W. Rep. 897 ; Austrian v. Sprin-
ger, 94 Mich. 343 ; Pennell v. Delta
Co., 94 Mich. 247; MoManus v. Lon-
don (Minn., 1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 139;
McCuUough V. Ashbridge, 155 Pa.
St. 166. In the case of a particular
custom not of general observance
and notoriety, actual knowledge must
be brought home to the parties.
Milw. etc. Co. V. Johnson, 35 Neb.
554.
'Brown v. Baldwin Co., 13 N. Y.
S. 893 ; McClusky v. Klosterman, 30
Orog. 108; 35 Pa,c. Rep. 366; Atkin-
son V. Truesdell, 137 N. Y. 330 ; 27 N.
E. Rep. 844; Long v. Armsby Co.,
43 Mo. App. 353 ; Thompson v. Bran-
nin (Ky., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 1057;
Pucoi V. Barney, 21 N. Y. S, 1099;
Destrehan v. Louisiana Cypress Co.
(La., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 330; Merchant
V. Howell (Minn., 1893), 55 N. W.
Rep. 131 ; Kansas City, etc. Co. v.
Webb (Ala., 1893), 11 S. Rep. 888;
Harrell v. Zimpleman, 66 Tex. 393;
Sahlien v. Bank, 90 Tenn. 331. See
also, Tiedeman on R. P., § 611. "A
general usage may be proved in
proper cases to remove ambiguities
and uncertainties in a contract or to
annex incidents, but it cannot de-
stroy, contradict or modify what is
otherwise manifest. Where the intent
and' meaning are clear, evidence of
usage to the contrary is irrelevant.
Usage cannot make a contract where
there is none." First Nat. Bank v.
Burkhardt, 100 U. S. 693. The cus-
tom need not be pleaded. Breen v.
Moran, 53 N. W. Rep. 755.
^The Reeside, 3 Sumn. 567; Cook
V. Hawkins, 16 S. W. Rep. 8 ; 54 Ark.
433 ; Van Camp v. Hartman, 126 Ind.
177 ; Larrowe v. Lewis, 58 Hun, 601 ;
De Cemea v. Cornell, 30 N. Y. S. 895 ;
§ 216.] PAEOL OE EXTEIN8I0 EVIDENCE. 317
But a custom must be generally known and uniformly and
continuously observed where the contract is made, or in the
profession or trade to which the parties belong; for if it be
cohfined to a limited class of persons, it is not presumptively
bindtng, and parol evidence of its existence is inadmissible. '
The courts have adverted to the danger of allowing the in-
troduction of parol evidence of custom to modify or limit the
general application of the common law and the law merchant
to the liabilities and obligations of parties. The present trend
of the cases is perhaps restrictive in this respect; and while
evidence of general and notorious customs is always admis-
sible to explain a writing, evidence of customs which are lim-
ited in their operations should only be received after it is
shown that the parties contracted with express reference
thereto.'* So, though parol evidence of general usage is ad-
missible whether the instrument under consideration be a cor-
porative charter, or other statute or deed or simple contract,'
yet proof of custom will not be admissible to enlarge the
statutory authority of officials,* or to establish a different rule
of law from that laid down by a statute.'
1 Misc. Rep. 399 ; Dobson v. Kuhula, ^ gee remarks of Justice Story in ,
66 Hun, 637; lasigi v. Eosenstein, 65 Schooner Reeside, 3 Sumn. 567; Nor-
id. 591; Simis v. Railway Co., 20 N. dans v. Hubbard, 48 Fed. Rep. 921.
Y. S. 179; Gilbert v. McGinnis, 114 sparrar v. Stackpole, 6 Greenl.
111. 48; Newhall v. Appletqn, 114 N. 154; Meriam v. Harsen, 3 Barb. 233.
Y. 148; De Witt v. Berry, 134 U. S. 4 Walters v. Senf (Mo., 1893), 33 S.
314; Emery v. Bos. Marine Ins. Co., W. Rep. 311.
138 Mass. 398; Bigelow v. Legg, 103 SGore v. Lewis, 109 N. C. 539;
N. Y. 654. Corn Exch. Bank v. Nassau Bank,
iPennell V. Delta Co., 94 Mich. 347; 91 N. Y. 74. The evidence of a sin-
Martin v. Ashland Mill Co., 49 Mo. — ; gle witness is, if unimpeached, suf-
Larson v. Johnson, 43 111. App. 198 ; ficient to prove usage. Miller v. In-
Green wich Ins. Co. V. Waterman, surance Co., 1 Abb. N. C. 470; Vail
54 Fed. Rep. 839; McCuUough v. v. Rice, 5 N. Y. 155; Robinson v.
Ashbridge, 155 Pa. St. 166; Oregon United States, 13 Wall. 363. See,
Short, etc. Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 51 also, Abbott's Brief on Facts, §,^ 737-
Fed. Rep. 465 ; McKeefrey v. Con- 735. He need not be an expert if he
nellsville Coke Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 470; knows the usage. Griffin v. Rice, 1
Dobson v. Kuhula, 66 Hun, 627 ; Hilt. (N. Y.-) 184. But his testimony
Bardwell V. Ziegler, 3 Wash. St. 84 ; to specific acts is incompetent as
Chateaugay, etc. Co. v. Blake, 144 U. proof of a usage. Springfield v.
S. 476. The custom need not be co- Vivian, 63 Mich. 681 ; Abbott, Brief
extensive with the state. Lane v. on Facts, § 733.
Union Bank, 39 N. E. Rep. 613.
318
PAROL OE EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE.
[§ 217.
§ 217. Technical terms.— Where language has an accepted
popular,^ commercial or scientific meaning,^ the court will-
take notice of its significance and will not receive evidence to
affix a different meaning,' upon the presumption that the
parties employed the words in their acoustocied sense.* But
where commercial or scientific terms which are peculiarly
technical are used, or where ordinary words are used in a
technical sense; *. e., a sense peculiar to a particular locality or
trade, a latent ambiguity arises where these words are viewed
in relation to the subject-matter or to extrinsic circumstances,
and, under such circumstances, where their meaning is not
clear, parol evidence is always admissible.' But the witness
iKemble v. Lull, 3 McLean, 372;
Sexton V. Windell, 33 Gratt. 534;
Brawley v. United States, 96 U. S.
168; Bradish v. Yocum, 130 111. 386.
2 Hart man v. Camman, 10 N. J.
Eq. 138.
3 " When parties engaged in a par-
ticular business use terms which
have acquired a well-defined mean-
ing in that business, the supposition
is that they intended the terms to
have their ordinary technical mean-
ing." South Bend Iron Works v,
Cottrell, 31 Fed. Eep. 256; Chilberg
V. Jones, 3 Wash. St. 530 ; Cole v.
Lake, 54 N. H. 378; Caldwell v. Ful-
ton, 31 Pa. St. 849 ; Cross v. Thomp-
son, 50 Kan. 627; Gardt v. Brown,
113 III. 475; Holoomb v. Mooney, 13
Greg. 513 ; Bradish v. Yocum, 130 111.
386; Van Fleet v. Sledge, 45 Fed.
Eep. 743; Matley v. Long, 71 Md.
585; Lippett v. Kelly, 46 Vt. 516;
Fruin v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 397; In-
surance Co. V. Throop, 32 Mich. 146 ;
Willmering v. McGauhey, 30 Iowa,
305.
■* So parol evidence to explain well-
known words, as "lower" and
"south" (Farley v. Deslonde, 69
Tex. 458), " breeder and foal-getter "
(Cross v. Thompson, supra), " present
and future " (Swain v. Grangers'
Union, 69 Cal. 176), " more or less"
(Shickle v. Chouteau Ry., 84 Mo.
161) "payment" (Van Fleet v.
Sledge, 45 Fed. Rep. 743), " a reason-
able time " (Jenkins v. Lykes, 19
Fla. 148), "timber" (Pillsbury v.
Locke, 33 N. H. 96), "lumber"
(Williams v. Stevens, 73 Wis. 487),
"store goods" (Taylor v. Sayre, 4
Zab. 647), will be rejected.
5 Bryan y. Harrison, 76 N. C. 860 ;
Silberman v. Clark, 96 N. Y, 524;
Clark V. Coffin Co., 125 Ind. 377;
Hall V. Davis, 36 N. H. 569 ; Charles
V. Patch, 87 Mo. 450 ; Mack v. Bens-
ley, 63 Wis. 80 ; Estman v. St. An-
thony, etc. Co., 43 Minn. 60; 44 N.
W. Rep. 883 ; Highton v. Dessau, 19
N. Y. S. 395; Putnam v. Bond, 100
'Mass. 58; Wabash, etc. Co. v. Mo-
Dougal, 113 111. 603; Atlanta v.
Schmelzer, 89 Ga. 609; Westmore-
land V. Carson, 76 Tex. 619 ; Bollinger
Co. V, McDowell, 99 Mo. 683. So
parol evidence has been received to
explain the meaning of such terms
as "fur" (Astor v. Insurance Co., 7
Cow. 203), "barrel" (Miller v.
Stevens, 100 Mass. 518), " terms, two
months " (Hurd v. Bovee, 134 N. Y.
596 ; 31 N. E. Rep. 634), " mason
work " (Highton v. Dessau, 19 N. Y.
S. 395), "horn chains" (Swett v.
Shumway, 102 Mass. 865), "head-
right " (Minor v. Powers (Tex. Civ.
§ 218.]
PAEOL OR EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE.
319
who is called to explain the meaning of the terms should be
confined to his legitimate office and should not be allowed to
affix a construction to the instrument.'
§218. Albbreviations. — These may, where they occur in
writing, be explained by parol evidence ^ of usage, if consist-
ent with the language of the contract,' though if they have
acquired a recognized legal or popular meaning parol evidence
to show they are used in another sense will be rejected.* The
letters""!. O. U." constitute a valid acknowledgment of a
debt due,' and a written "I. 0. U." is presumptive evidence
of an account stated.^ The meaning of the letters "C." and
"J. P." after the 'signatures on a writ may be explained b}"^
parol as meaning " constable" and "justice of the peace." '
App., 1894), 24 S. W. Eep. 710),
"homestead farm " (Locke v. Row-
ell, 47 N. H. 46), ' ' on margin " (Hatch
V. Douglas, 48 Conn. 116), "un-
settled " (Auzeriaz v. Neglee, 74 Cal.
60), "equal to Corliss" (Wiokes v.
Swift Co., 70 Mich. 333), "product"
(Stewart v. Smith, 23 111. 397), " reg-
ular turn of loading " (Leideman v.
Schultz, 24 Eng. L. & Eq. 305),
" care of R. R. Ag't" (Sav., etc. Co.
V. Collins, 77 Ga. 376), "season"
(Waohterhaus v. Smith, 10 N. Y. S.
535), " crop of flax " (5 Lans. (N. Y.)
230), " cold storage " (Behrman v.
Lind, 47 Hun, 530), " payable in
trade " (Dudley v. Vose, 1 14 Mass.
34), "spitting of blood" (Singleton
V. St. Louis, etc. Co., 66 Mo. 63),
' ' proposition " (Lamb v. State, 66
Md. 285), " flood-dams cribbed,
sparred, etc." (Quigley v. De Hass,
98 Pa. St. 292), " bought 12i, 6 mos."
(Dana v. Fiedler, 12 N. Y. 40),
"good custom cowhide" (Wait v.
Fairbanks, Brayt. (Vt.) 77), "good
breeder " (Connable v. Clark, 26 Mo.
App. 193), " merchantable hay "
(Fitch V. Carpenter, 43 Barb. 40),
" advertising chart when published "
(Sloops V. Smith, 100 Mass. 63).
1 Reynolds v. Jordan, 6 Cal. 109 ;
State V. Lefaivre, 53 Mo. 470; Arthur
V. Roberts, 60 Barb. (N. Y.) 580;
Reynolds v. Jordan, 6 Cal. 109;
Sanford v. Rawlings, 48 111. 93.
2 Hill V. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 357 ;
Converse v. "Weed (111., 1893), 31 N.
E. Rep. 314; Jacqua v. Witham, 106
Ind. 545; Griffin v. Salmon, 6 Daly,
531; Sheldon v. Benham, 4 Hill
(N. Y.), 139; Damm v. Gow, 88
Mich. 99 ; Taylor v. Beavers, 4 E. D.
Smith, 215; Collender v. Dinsmore,
55 N. Y. 200. In wills. Chambers
V. Watson, 60 Iowa, 339 ; Goblet v.
Beechy, 3 Sim. 24; Norman v. Mor-
rell, 4 Ves. 769 ; Clayton v. Nugent,
13 M. & W. 206; Kell v. Charmer,
33 Beav. 195; Barton v. Anderson,
104 Ind. 578 ; Smith v. Insurance Co.,
89 Pa. St. 287.
8 Collender v. Dinsmoro, 55 N. Y.
203; Dana v. Fiedler, 12 N. Y. 40.
^Silberman V. Clark, 96 N. Y. 533.
5 Kinney v. Flynn, 2 R. I. 319.
SFesenmyer v. Adcock, 16 M. &
W. 449 ; Curtis v. Richards, 1 Scott
N. R. 155 ; Gould v. Combs, 1 C. B.
513.
T Davis V. Harnbell (Tex,, 1894), 34
S. W. Rep. 972. "In declaring on
an instrument containing abbrevi-
ated terms, extrinsic averments may
320
PAEOL OE EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE. [§§ 219, 220.
§ 219. The relations of the parties. — Parol evidence is
inadmissible to siiow that a person who signs as principal was
an agent,' or that one who signs as indorser was a suret}'.^
But parol evidence is often admissible to identify the parties,'
or to show the relations of the parties, as that a person who
signed a note as payer did so as a surety,* or in his represent-
ative capacity,' or that an indorser is not the assignee but the
payee of a note,' or that a person who writes his name on the
back of a note did so as a witness and not as an indor'ser.'
§ 220. To ascertain or explain suhject-matter.— The
term "subject," as here used, may be defined as the persons
or things to Avhich the writing relates. Parol evidence will
be admitted to identify or ascertain the subject of the instru-
ment or to explain its. nature when, from the circumstances of
the case, no light is obtainable from a careful consideration of
the context.' Thus, where property, whether real or personal.
be used to make them intelligible;
and evidence of the sense in which
the parties were in the habit of using
the abbreviations and of their con-
ventional meaning is admissible, but
not to show the intention of one
party in using them. Generally, in
indictments, common words are to
be used. Abbreviations of terms
employed by men of science or in
the arts will not answer without full
explanation of their meaning in com-
mon language. The use of ' A. D.,'
because of its universality, consti-
tutes an exception. Arabic figures
and Roman letters have also become
indicative of numbers as fully as
words. Their general use makes
them known to all. But unexplained
initials, referring to public land sur-
veys, etc., may not be employed in
an indictment.'' Jacqua v. Witham
& Co., 106 Ind. 547-48.
iSteirle v. Kaiser, 12 S. Rep. 839;
Hunt V, Adams, 7 Mass. 518; Cream
City G. Co. V. Friedlander, 54 N. W.
-Rep. 28.
^ Riley v. Gerrish, 9 Cush. 104,
' Parsons v. Thornton, 82 Ala. 303.
< Riley v. Gregg, 16 Wis. 666;
Trustees v. Southard, 31 111. App.
859 ; Otis v. Storch, 15 R. I. 41 ; Brad-
ley v. Caswell (Vt., 1893), 26 Atl.
Rep. 956.
5 Russell V. Irwin, 41 Ala. 292;
Northern Bank v. Lewis, 78 Wis.
475; Keidom v. Winegar (Mich.,
1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 901.
6 Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S.
150.
'Tombler v. Reitz (Ind., 1893), 33
N. E. Rep. 789. Parol evidence is
not admissible to show that one who
indorses ' ' without recourse " is a
surety. Young v. Nelson (Minn.,
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 629.
8 " In order to ascertain the relation
of the words of a document to facts,
every fact may bo proved to which
it refers or may probably have been
intended to refer, or which identifies
any person or thing mentioned in it.
Such facts are called the circum-
stances of the case." Stephen's Dig.
of Ev., art. 91,
§ 220.]
PAROL OE EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE.
321
is conveyed, its condition or extent at that time is usually re-
ferred to, and any evidence necessary to place the court in
the position of the parties themselves in order to ascertain
the sense of the words employed is admissible.^ Where a
description is ambiguous parol evidence is admissible to show
the extent and character of a grantor's possession.^ Thus,
where a farm or house is conveyed, parol evidence, while not
admissible to vary or contradict the boundaries stated in the
deed,' is admissible to ascertain the identity' or the location of
the monuments where they are lost or have been moved, or
where doubt exists concerning what objects are intended as
monuments.*
Whenever something extrinsic is referred to as the subject-
matter of a writing, as the family or property of a grantor or
a testator, evidence of the facts and circumstances is necessary
to identify it unless, as rarely happens, the writing itself fur-
nishes a means of identification. Thus, where a testator or
grantor refers to his estate in Westchester, or known as B.,
1 Schneider v. Patterson (Neb.,
1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 398; In re Gil-
move, 154 Pa. St. 523; Mounett v.
Mounett, 46 Ohio St. 30 ; Eiohardson
V. Palmer, 38 N. H. 318; Hughes v.
Wilkinson, 35 Ala. 453; Welch v.
Edmiston, 46 Mo. App. 283; Abbot'.
V. Abbott, 51 Me. 581 ; Peart v. Price,
153 Pa. St. 277; Long v. Long, 44
Mo. App. 141; Baker v. Hall (Mass.,
1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 613 ; Roberts v.
Roberts, 55 N. Y. 275 ; Thompson v.
Railroad Co., 82 Cal. 497; Clark
V. Coffin Co., 125 Ind. 277 ; Ft. Worth
R. R. Co. V. Bank, 84 Tex. 369;
Perry v. Scott, 109 N. C. 374 ; Paugh
V. Paugh, 40 111. App. 143; Minor
V. Powers (Tex., 1894), 24 S. W. Rep.
710. I
2 Bell V. Woodward, 46 N. H. 827;
Baker v. Hall (Mass., 1893), 38 N, B.
Rep. 613;, Booth v. Palte, L. R. 15
App. Cas. 188; Tmsley v. Dowell
(Tex., 1894), 24 S. W. Rep. 938.
3 Pride v. Lunt, 19 Me. 115; Par-
ker V. Kane, 32 How. 1 ; McCoy v.
21
Galloway, 3 Ohio, 383; Thayer v..
Finton, 108 N. Y. 397 ; Segar v. Bab-
cock (R. L, 1893), 26 Atl. Rep. 257;.
Drew V. Swift, 46 N. Y. 209; Dean
V. F'-skine, 18 N. H. 83' Spiller v:
Scribner, 3fi Vt. 247 ; Hall v. Eaton,.
139 Mass. 217: Kernam v. Baham,
13 S. Rep. 155; Beardsley v. Crane
(Minn.. 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 740.
^Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick.
261 ; Segar v. Babcock (R. L, 1893),
26 Atl. Rep. 257 ; -Beardsley v. Crane
(Minn., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 740;
Minor v. Kirkland (Tex., 1893), 20 S.
W. Rep. 933; Campbell v. Wood
(Mo., 1893), 33 S. W. Rep. 796; Wead
V. Railroad Co., 64 Vt. 53; Sheetz v.
Sweeney, 136 Tl. 886; Flagg v.
Mason 141 Mass. 64; Converse
V. Lamghshow, 81 Tex. 375 ; Pickett
V. Nelson, 79 Wis. 9; Rapley v.
Klugh (S. C, 1894), 18 S. E. Rep.
680; Wells v. Leveridge, 20 Oreg.
168 ; Baldwin v. Shannon, 43 N. J.
L. 96; Tiedeman on R. P., § 832,
322 PAEOL OE EXTEINSIC EVIDENCE. [§ 220.
or occupied by a certain person, parol evidence is immediately
required to show that he owned an estate such as is described.'
Again, suppose the testator bequeathes his " money " or " house-
hold furniture," or all " his property " or " estate," using words
which have a common and well-recogJiized meaning in a pe-
culiar, vague and confusing manner. No ambiguity, latent
or patent, can be said to exist until evidence has been received
which would tend to ascertain or identify the subject-matter.
For the words, while not technical or unusual, are employed
by the writer in a general and vague sense, and the meaning
which he wishes to convey cannot possibly be apprehended
on an inspection of the instrument alone. If extrinsic evidence
were not receivable in such a case, the intention of the person
executing the instrument could not be effectuated.^ In such
cases of doubt and uncertainty, ^' when the language in its
primary meaning is insensible with reference to extrinsic cir-
cumstances,"' extrinsic evidence is admissible of all facts and
circumstances appertaining to the persons or things which
are mentioned that will make the intention of the testator
more clearly appear. But the rule should not be carried too
far. Thus, in the case of wills or other transactions which
the law requires to be in writing, parol evidence of the decla-
rations of the intention of the testator either prior or sub-
sequent to or contemporaneous with the execution of the
instrument is not admissible, unless in the case of a lat:)nt
ambiguity arising from the fact that there are two or more
persons or things answering substantially to the description
of the writing.*
1 Mead V. Parker, 115 Mass. 413'; ham v. Gannett, 124 Mass. 151;
Aldrich v. Aldrich, 135 Mass. 153 ; Eaymond v. Coffey, 5 Oreg. 133.
Kniok V. Knick, 75 Va. 13; War- 2 where a testator devises the
field V. Booth, 33 Md. 68; Willis v. house he lives in, parol evidence is
Fernald, 33 N. J. L. 206; CoUender admissible to identify it. Beham v.
V. Dinsmore, 55 N. Y. 200 ; Collins Hendrickson, 33 N. J. Eq. 441 ;
V. DriscoU, 34 Conn. 43 ; Rugg v. Chambers v. Watson, 60 Iowa, 839.
Ward, 28 Atl. Rep. 726; Eiggs v. 3 Taylor, Ev., § 1109; Wigram on
Myers, 20 Mo. 239 ; Austee v. Nelmes, Wills, 67-70.
1 H. & M. 235 ; Cleverly V. Cleverly, ^Mosely v. Martin, 87 Ala. 316;
124 Mass. 314; Maguire v. Baker, 57 Morse v. Stearns, 131 Mass. 889;
Ga. 109 ; Tuxbury v. French, 41 Lovejoy v. Lovett, 134 id. 270 ; Hall
Mich. 7 ; Black v. Hill, 82 Ohio St. v. Davis, 86 N. H. 569 ; Morgan v.
313; Cox V. Cox, 91 N. C. 356; Dun- Burrows, 45 Wis. 211 ; Mittnacht v.
§ 221.J. PAEOL ,0E EXTEIN8I0 ETIUENOE. 323
§231. Ambiguities defined and distinguished — Parol evi-
dence to explain. — An ambiguity in a written instrument is
any indistinctness, duplicity or uncertainty of meaning aris-
ing from the word? having no definite sense or a double mean-
ing.i A writing is not ambiguous merely because the court
cannot understand its meaning on account of the technical
language in which it is couched.^ So language may be in-
accurate -without being ambiguous, and ambiguous though
strictly accurate. So where by rejecting that portion of a
description which is inaccurate as surplusage the intention of
the writer can be ascertained, no ambiguity can be said to exist.*
On the other hand, the words " indistinctness," " uncertainty "
and " obscurity " are much broader in meaning. They in-
clude ambiguities, but they also include all cases of language
which is devoid of sense or which does not have any clear or
precise meaning.
Ambiguities are divided into those which are patent and
those which are latent.* The former class includes those
which appear upon the face of the writing itself, whether will
or deed, before the words are applied to any extrinsic subject
Slevin, 67 Hun, 615; Bullock v. ambiguous merely because the court
Consumers' Lumber Co.'(Cal., 1893), which is called upon to explain
31 Pac. Rep. 367 ; Todd v. Roberts, them may be ignorant of a particu-
1 Tex. Civ. App. 8 ; Forbes v. Dar- lar art, fact or science which was fa-
liiig, 94 Mich. 631 ; Tompkins v. miliar to the person who used the
Merriman, 155 Pa. St 440; Scraggs words, and a knowledge of which
V. Hill (W, Va., 1893), 17 S. E. Rep. is necessary to a right understand-
185. ing of the words he has used. If
1 Bouvier, Law, Diet. ; EUmaker v. this be not a just conclusion it must
Ellmaker, 4 Watts (Pa.), 89. follow that the question whether a
2 Wigram, in his treatise on Ex- will is ambiguous might be depend-
trinsio Evidence, sections 200 and ent not upon the propriety of the
301, says in a passage which has been language the testator has used, but
repeatedly cited with approbation : upon the degree of knowledge, gen-
" A written ■ instrument is not am- eral or even local, wljich a particular
biguous because an ignorant and un- judge might happen to possess ; nay,
informed person is unable to inter- the technical precision and accuracy
pret it. It is ambiguous only if of a scientific man might occasion his
found to be of uncertain meaning intestacy — a proposition too absurd
when persons of competent skill and for an argument."
information are unable to do so. ' Wigram, §§ 300-305.
Words cannot be ambiguous because * 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 397; Bacon's
they are unintelligible to a man who Maxims, Reg. 33; Tiedeman, R. P.,
is unable to read ; nor can they be § 886,
324
PAROL OE EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE.
[§ 221.
or object, as when a sum of money or the name of a person
is differently stated in different parts of the writing.^ Latent
ambiguities occur where the writing itself is clear and con-
sistent, but where, in the language of Lord Uacon, " some
collateral matter out of the deed breedeth the ambiguity."
Thus, in a devise of a house at A., a latent ambiguity will
occur if the testator owned two or more houses in that place.
The general rule is that parol evidence is inadmissible to
explain a patent ambiguity, and the writing is, to the extent
it is ambiguous, void and inoperative.^ But the court has a
right to every aid which is within its power in construing any
instrument.' And so in the case of a patent ambiguity, some
exceptions have been made to the general rule.*
Latent ambiguities, which arise when the language of the
instrument is ambiguous or meaningless as applicable to ex-
trinsic circumstances, may always be explained by extrinsic
evidence.^ They may be divided into two classes: First, where
iThus, a devise "to one of the
eons of A." is a good example of a
patent ambiguity. Strode v. Rus-
sell, 2 Vern. 634.
2Brauns v. Stearns, 1 Oreg. 367;
Brown v. Brown, 43 N. H. 85;
Soraggs V. Hill (W. Va., 1893), 17 S.
E. Rep. 185 ; Pickering v. Pickering,
50 N. H. 349; Pitts v. Brown, 49 Vt.
86 ; Patch v. White, 1 Mackey (D. C. ),
468; Mann v. Mann, 1 Johns. Ch. 231 ;
Griffith V. Furry, 30 111. 251 ; Hyatt
V. Pugsley, 23 Barb, (N, Y.) 285;
Waldron v, Waldron, 45 Mich, 350 ;
Hollen V. Davis, 59 Iowa, 444 ; Tucker
V. Seamen's Aid Society, 7 Mete,
(Mass,) 183; Ayres v. Weed, 16 Conn,
291 ; Horner v, Stillwell, 35 N, J. L.
307 ; McDermot v. U. S. Ins. Co., 3
S. & R, (Pa.) 604; Richmond, etc. Co,
V. Farquar, 8 Blackf, (Ind,) 89;
Clark V, Lancaster, 36 Md, 196; Bow-
yer v, Martin, 6 Rand, (Va,) 525;
Campbell v, Johnson, 44 Mo, 247;
Harris v, Dinkins, 4 Desaus, (S, C)
60; Chambers v, Ringslaff, 69 Ala,
140; Duncan v. Duncan, S Yeatea
(Pa,), 303 : 8 id. 295 ; Weston v. White,
5 Md, 297; Mithofif v. Byrne, 20 La,
Ann, 363 ; Peacher v, Strauss, 47 Miss.
358 ; Nashville L. I, Co, v, Mathews,
8 Lea (Tenn,), 299; Breckinridge v,
Duncan, 2 A. K, Marsh. 50 ; Brennan
V, Winkler (S. C, 1893), 16 S, E, Rep,
190, But parol evidence is always
admissible to explain illegible words
or symbols. Taylor v. Beavers, 4
E. D. Smith, 315 ; Arthur v. Roberts,
60 Barb, 5^0,
3 Abbott, Brief on Facts, g§ 148, 149.
* CoUison V, Curling, 9 CI, & Fin,
88, " The rule forbidding extrinsic
evidence to cure a patent ambiguity
is not applicable except the writing
is required by a statute which the
ambiguity prevents the writing from
satisfying," Abbott, Brief on Facts,
§153.
6 Hildebrand v. Fogle, 20 Ohio, 147 ;
Mason v. Ryus, 26 Kan, 464 ; How-
ard v, American, etc, Soc, 49 Me.
388; Wheelwright v. Akin (Ga.,
1893), 17 S. E, Rep, 610; Bell v.
Woodward, 46 N, H. 315; McAnulty
§ 221.]
PAEOL OE EXTKINSIC EVIDENCE.
325
the description of the subject-matter, *. e., the property or
person mentioned, is clear and certain upon the face of the
instrument itself, but it is found by extrinsic evidence that
there is more than one estate or subject-matter or more than
one person whose description corresponds with legal certainty
to the terms of the instrument. Thus, when the testator de-
vises land to a person by name or description and the land is
claimed by more than one person, all of whom answer to the
name or other description, parol evidence, including the testa-
tor's declarations of intention, is admissible to identify the per-
son whom the testator intended to benefit.^ Second, where
V. Urban, 25 N. Y. S. 274; Wolfert
V. Pittsburg R. Co., 44 Mo. App.
330; Bovee v. Hurd, 134 N. Y. 456;
Knappv. Warner, 57 id. 668; Clark
V. Woodruff, 83 id. 218; Neal v.
Reams, 83 Ga. 298; Bell v. Boyd, 53
id. 643; Coals v. Sulan, 46 Kan. 341 ;
McDonald v. Bana, 154 Mass. 152;
Simpson v. Dix, 131 id. 179; Love-
joy V. Lovett, 124 id. 270; GofE v.
Roberts, 73 Mo, 570; Brewster v.
McCall, 15 Conn. 274; Altschul v.
San Francisco, etc. Co., 43 Cal. 171;
Begg V. Beggs, 56 Wis. 534; Peters
V. Porter, 60 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 422;
Thomas v. Truscott, 53 Barb. (N. Y.)
300: Sandford v. Newark, 37 N. J. L.
1; Wilson v. Home, 65 Ala. 448;
Warfleld v. Booth, 33 Md. 63; Fryer
V. Patrick, 43 Md. 51; Hawkins v.
Garland, 76 Va. 149 ; Piper v. True,
36 Cal. 606 ; Moore v. United States,
17 Ct. of CI. 17 ; Pratt v. California
M. Co., 24 Fed. Rep. 869; United
States V. Peck, 102 U. S. 64 ; Lumey
V. Wood, 66 Tex. 22; Lego v. Med-
ley, 79 Wis. 311; Euless v. Mc-
Adams, 108 N. C. 507. A devise to
" my children " raises a latent am-
biguity when the testator has illegit-
imate or adopted children, and parol
evidence will be received to explain
whom should be included by the
term. Kllis v. Houston, L. R. 10
Ch. Div. 236 ; Brower v. Bowers. 1
Abb. App. Dec. 214; In re Cahn, 3
Redf. (N. Y.)31. "The distinction
between latent and patent ambiguity
as respects the admissibility of parol
evidence lies in the rule that the in-
tention must be gathered from the
will itself. If it is a patent ambi-
guity the will does not express any
certain intention and it is therefore
void for uncertainty. But if the
ambiguity is latent, i. e., discovered
dehors the will, there would be no
ambiguity as to intention if the in-
vestigation was confined to the will
itself. The ambiguity arising from
extraneous facts may be explained
away." Tiedeman, R. P.; § 884.
1 Patch V. White, 117 U. S. 310;
Connolly v. Pardon, 1 Paige, 291;
Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U. S. 586; Dun-
ham V. Averill, 45 Conn. 61, 68;
Hawkins v. Garland, 78 Va. 149;
Goodhue v. Clark, 37 N. IL 525;
Skinner v. Harrison, 116 Ind. 139;
Matter of Cahn, 3 Redf. Sur. 31;
Beardsley v. Am. Miss. Soc, 45 Conn.
337 ; Stokeley v. Gordon, 8 Md. 496 ;
Smith V. Smith, 4 Paige, 271 ; Hall
V. Leonard, 1 Pick. 31; Jackson v,
Boneham, 15 Johns. 296; Pinson v.
Ivey, 1 Yerg. 296; Button v. Am.
Tract Soc, 23 Vt. 338; Hay don v.
Ewing, 1 B. Mon. 113. Cf. Eckford
v. Eckford (Iowa, 1893), 53 N. W.
Rep. 345 ; Hinckley v. Thatcher, 139
326
PAEOL OE EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE.
[§222.
the description is clear, but partly applicable and partly inap-
plicable as applied to some property or person that is al-
leged to be intended; as, for example, in cases of misnomer
or misdescription of property or persons. In such cases, where
the description is untrue in some particular (which fact can
only, be ascertained by extrinsic evidence), that part of the
description which is false will be repudiated, and the re-
mainder, if sufficient to identify the person or thing, will be
permitted to go into effect.^ If the description is wholly in-
applicable to the object said to be intended, evidence is inad-
missible to show what its author really intended to describe.
§ 222. Parol evidence to explain wills. — By the statute
of wills which has been enacted in all the states of the Union,
wills, with the exception of those termed nuncupative, are re-
quired to be in writing, properly authenticatedj and parol evi-
dence is inadmissible to control, vary or contradict the lan-
guage used.^ The principles and rules of law applicable to
Mass. 477; Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59
N. Y. 434; Evans v. Grissom, 40 N.
J. L. 549.
'Bristol V. Ontario Orp. Asylum,
60 Conn. 473 : Faulkner v. National
S, Home, 155 Mass. 458; 29 N. E.
Eep. 645; Chappell v. Mispionary
Soc, 3 Ipd, App. 856; 29 id. 924;
Kimball v. Chappell, 27 Abb. N. C.
437; Tallman v. Tallman, 3 Misc.
Eep. 465 ; In re Lennig's Eiitate, 154
Pa. St. 209; 25 Atl. Eep. 1069. But
in such cases the declarations of the
writer or grantor are inadmissible.
a See^osf, § 269; In re Gilmore, 81
Cal. 240; Vreeland v. Williams, 32
N. J. Eq. 734; Turner v. Sav. Inst.,
76 Me. 527; GreenougK v. Cass, 64
N. H. 326; Lee v. Shivers, 70 Ala.
288; Foster v. Dickinson, 64 Vt. 253 j
Graham v. Graham, 23 W. Va. 36;
Crooks V. Whitford, 47 Mich, 283;
In re Gordon (N. J., 1893), 26 Atl.
Eep. 268; McDaniel v. King, 90 N. C.
597; Senger v. Senger, 81 Va. 687;
Hancock's Appeal, 113 Pa. St. 533;
Eobinson v. Brewster, 140 111. 649;
Magee v. McNeal, 41 Miss. 17. Thus,
for example, a blank in a will can-
not be filled by parol evidence show-
ing what words the testator meant
to have inserted, as to permit this
would be equivalent to making an
oral disposition of property where
the law requires a writing. Tuckers
V. Seamen's Aid Soc, 7 Mete. (Mass.)
205; Clayton v. Nugent, 13 M;. & W.
200; Baylis v. A. G., 3 Atk. 239;
Hunt V. Hart, 3 Bro. C. C. 311, cited
8 Bing. 254. On this subject Vice-
Chancellor Wigram says : " If, then,
a testator's words, aided by the light
derived from the circumstances with
reference lo which they were used,
do not express the intention ascribed
to hifflj evidence to prove the sense
in which he intended to use them
is, as a general proposition, inadmis-
sible ; in other words, the judgment
of a court in expounding a will must
be simply declaratory of what is in
the will." Wigram, Extrinsic Ev.,
§87.
§ 222.] PAROL OE EXTRINSIC ETIDBNOE. 327
the interpretation of, wills are, it has been said,' the same as
where other writings are concerned. It is evident, however,
that certain elements enter into the consideration pf the ques-
tion how far is extrinsic evidence admissible in relation to
wills that are not present where other writings are under
consideration. In reply to any demand for an assimilation
of contracts and wills in this particular, it may be said that
the former instruments possess a mutuality of character and
impl}' a reciprocity of benefits or disiad vantages which furnish
strong reasons for refusing to allow contracts to be varied by
evidence of parol declarations of intention. But the benefit
conveyed by a will is voluntarj' and unilateral. The contents
of the instrument itself, unlike a contract or writing between
parties, are usually a secret in the keeping of the testator or of
his confidential adviser, and this circumstance alone is suflB-
cient to cast some suspicion upon any public oral declara-
tions of the testator as to his intention. The law encourages
this secrecy, and, by consistently refusing to regard the secret
testamentary act or writing as other than revocable, enables
the testator "to baffle with equivocation or misrepresentation
the importunities of the expectant and the inquisitiveness of
the curious." ^ So, on general principles, it is manifestly ab-
surd to accept hearsay evidence, which must often necessarily
be given by persons who by social connections or by ties of
kinship have or imagine they have some moral or legal claims
upon the bounty of the testator, to show that the latter, whose
lips are now forever sealed by death, meant something other
than his intention solemnly and formally committed to writ-
ing and authenticated in the express mode prescribed by stat-
ute. So, despite the fact that wills are frequently executed
under circumstances very unfavorable to mental clearness, or
to the lucid expression of intention, and despite the tend-
ency of the courts to favor, so far as is possible, the exercise
of the testamentary power so that it may with truth be said
that the law prefers that a man should not die intestate, the
modern cases construing wills restrict to a greater extent than
formerly the admission of parol evidence in relation thereto.
At the outset also it is necessary to distinguish carefully be-
» 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 387, 2 Abbott, Trial Ev., p. 131.
328 PAEOL OE EXTKINSIC EVIDENCE. [§ 222.
tween extrinsic evidence to show or establisli the intention
directly, which is never admissible, and extrinsic evidence to
explain the intention or to ascertain what it was as expressed
by the language of the will, or to show that the will does
actually express the testator's intention or that he never in-
tended the writing as testamentary.
So under the general rule that fche invalidity of an instru-
ment may be shown, parol evidence is always admitted to
show that a paper purporting to be the will of the testator is
not his will and does not contain his testamentary intention
because it was executed by mistake,^ in order to effect some
non-testamentary object,^ or as a duplicate of an earlier writ-
ing.' So parol evidence is always admissible to show that the
testator was mentally incapacitated on account of imbecility
or insanity.* If a testamentary gift is procured by a promise
to hold, the same for the benefit of another person, this prom-
ise may be shown by parol and it will be deemed to create a
constructive parol trust.^ Where it is alleged that a will was
executed under undue influence, extrinsic evidence is admitted
to show the surrounding circumstances of the testator at the
moment of execution, his private history and that of his fam-
ily,' and other facts necessary to enable the court to ascertain
1 In re Hunt, L. R. 3 P. & D. 250 ; In re Spencer, 96 Cal. 448 ; Morris v.
In re Gordon (1893), P. 228; Covert Morton (Ky., 1893), 20 S. Rep. 287.
V. Sebern, 73 Iowa, 564; Severson SQiagg v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 42
T. Sev-erson, 68 id. 657. Hooker v. Axford, 33 Micli. 453
2 Lister v. Smith, 33 L. J. Prob. 29. Headley v. Renner, 130 Pa. St. 542
3 Hubbard v. Alexander, 3 C^. D. Church v. Ruland, 64 id. 433 ; Dowd
738. V. Tuclser, 41 Conn. 197; Hoge v.
* Ross V. McQuiston, 45 Iowa, 145 ; Hoge, 1 Watts, 163, 213 ; Williams
Ellis V. Ellis, 133 Mass. 469 ; Dyer v. v. Vreeland, 29 N. J. Eq. 417.
Dyer, 87 Ind. 13; Rule v. Maupin, 6 ciarli v. Stansbury, 49 Md. 346;
84 Mo. 587; In re Blakely, 48 Wis. Reynolds v. Adams, 90 III. 134; Pot-
294; Harrison's Appeal, 100 Pa. St. ter's Appeal, 53 Mich. 106; Canada's
458; Frary v. Gusha, 59 Vt. 257; 9 Appeal, 47 Conn. 450. Where in-
Atl. Rep. 549 ; Schneider v. Man- sanity is alleged it may be shown by
ning, 121 111. 376; 12 N. E. Rep. 367 ; parol that he never was mentally in-
In re Norman, 33 N. W. Rep. 374 ; capacitated or that he had recover-ed
72 Iowa, 84 ; Prentis v. Bates, 93 or that the will was executed in a
Mich. 234; Johnson v, Armstrong lucid interval. In re Rapple, 66
(Ala., 1893), 12 S. Rep. 72; Bulger Hun, 558; Shanley's Appeal (Conn.,
v. Ross (Ala., 1893), 12 S. Rep. 803; 1893), 25 Atl. Rep. 245; In re Spen-
§ 223.] PAEOL OE EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE. 329
whether or not such influence existed. So, generally, where
the will is written in a foreign language, or where it contains
technical words, or common words used in a peculiar sense, or
technical, scientific or legal words used in a non-technical
sense, or clerical mistakes obvious on its face, or where a
devisee is ambiguously described or inaccurately named, parol
evidence is admissible under the rules and principles elabo-
rated in this chapter, not to show the intention, but to enable
the court to place itself in the position occupied by the testator
when he executed the will and to ascertain the intention from
the testamentary writing applied to extrinsic objects and
read in the light thus derived from surrounding and explana-
tory circumstances.^
§ 323. Parol evidence to show absolute deed a mortgage —
In suits for specific performance, reformation and cancella-
tion.— It is a rule of general acceptance that parol evidence
is admissible in equity to show that a deed absolute on its
face was intended as a mortgage, whenever fraud, accident
or mistake is alleged in its execution or in the use to which
it is put by the grantee.^ The tendency at the present day
is to afford relief even in the absence of actual fraud or mis-
take in the execution of the deed, whenever the circumstances
are such that the use of the writing as a deed would be in-
equitable, or where the intention to create a mortgage is shown.'
cer, 96 Cal. 448; Martin v. Thayer, Beach, 115 Ind. 413; Knapp v. Bailey,
37 W. Va. 38 ; Preatis v. Bates, 93 79 Me. 195 ; Biggars v. Byrd, 55 Ga.
Mich. 334. 650; Greeu v. Sherrod, 105 N. C.
1 For a very clear elucidation of 197; Price v. Grover, 40 Md. 203;
the somewhat contradictory rules Hurst v. Beaver, 50 Mich. 613; Mar-
regulating the reception of parol shal v. Thompson, 39 Minn. 137;
evidence in connection with wills, Weathersley v. Weathersley, 40
the reader is referred to Abbott's Miss. 403; Shradski v. Albright, 93
Trial Evidence, pp. 139-150. Mo. 42; Pierce v. Traver, 13 Nev.
2 First Nat. Bank v. Kreig (Nev,, 526; Odell v. Montross, 68 N. Y. 499
1893), 32 Pac. Rep. 641; Locke v. Stephens v. Allen, 11 Oreg. 188
Moulton, 96 Cal. 21 ; Peugh v. Davis, Berbesick v. Fxitz, 39 Iowa, 700
96 U. S. 332; Campbell v. Dearborn, Kinports v. Boyton, 120 Pa. St. 806
109 Mass. 150; Harman v. May, 40 Kerr v. Hill, 27 W! Va. 576; Hick-
Ark. 146; First Nat. Bank v. Ash- man v. Quinn, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 96;
mead, 23 Fla. 379; Workman v. Edwards v. Wall, 79 Va. 331; Nes-
Greening, 115 111. 477 ; Darst v. bitt v. Cavendar, 37 S. C. 1.
Murphy, 119 id. 343- Moreland v. ' The evidence must be cl6ar, con-
Bernhardt, 44 Tex. 275; Rogers v. vincing and free from doubt in order
330
PAROL OE EXTEINSIC EVIDENCE.
[§ 223.
Under this rule may be showa the existence of a parol agree-
ment of defeasance, the relation of the parties and the decla-
rations of either, the possession of the premises by complainant,
a loan to him by the grantee and his payment of interest, the,
value of the property as compared with the consideration paid,
the needs of the grantor and any agreement to repay.^ The
statute of frauds does not prevent the reception of such evi-
dence, which is introduced not to vary but to invalidate a writ-
ing.2 The current or authority is decidedly in favor of the
that the deed may be deemed a mort-
gage. Ganceart V. Hem'y(Cal., 1893),
33 Pac. Rep. 93 ; Parmer v. Parmer,
88 Ala. 545; Fisher's Appeal, 133
Pa. St. 488; Pollock v. Warwick,
104 N. C. 638 ; Franklin v. Ayers, 33
Fla. 644; Langes v. Meservey, 45
N. W. Rep. 733; Armor V. Spalding
(Colo., 1890), 38 Pac. Rep. 789; Jame-
son V. Emerson, 83 Me. 309 ; Strong
v; Strong, 136 111. 301; Barton v.
Lynch, 69 Hun, 1 ; Baird v. Rein-
inghaus (Iowa, 1893), 54 N. W. Rep.
148. "In considering the nature
and sufficiency of the evidence re-
quired to convert a deed absolute on
its face into a mortgage, we should
never lose sight of the rules and
practice of the court of equity at the
time it was established by that court
that parol evidence could be received
for that purpose. . . . The same
and no less convincing proofs were
required that are necessary to au-
thorize the reformation of a written
contract on the ground of mistake.
If the proofs are doubtful and un-
satisfactory and the mistake is not
made entirely plain, equity will with-
hold relief upon the ground that the*
written paper ought to be treated as
a full and correct expression of the
intent until the contrary is estab-
lished beyond reasonable contro-
versy." Kent v. Lasley, 34 "Wis.
654. See, also, Clayburgh v. Good-
child, 19 Atl. Rep. 1015 ; 135 Pa. St.
431. And compare PouUain v. Poul-
lain, 76 Ga. 430, in which it was
held that proof beyond a reasonable
doubt is not requii-ed in cases of
mistakes alleged to exist in written
Instruments.
1 S wett V. Parker, 33 N. J. Eq. 453 ;
Farmer v. Grove, 34 Cal. 169.
2 Walker v. Walker, 3 Atk. 98;
Campbell V. Dearborn, 109 Mass. 130 ;
Reigard v. O'Neill, 38 111. 400 ; Sewell
V. Price, 33 Ala. 97; Klein v. Mc-
Namara, 54 Miss. 90; Carr v. Carr,
53 N. Y. 251 ; Taylor v. Luther, 3
Sumn. (TJ. S.) 238. For a full dis-
cussion of the equitable doctrine on
this subject, see Tiedeman on Equity, ■
§ 190. In Campbell v. Dearborn, 109
Mass. 130, the court, by Wells, J.,
said : " We do not regard the stat-
ute of frauds as interposing any in-
superable obstacles to the granting
of relief in such a case, because re-
lief, if granted, is attained by sstting
aside the deed, and parol evidence is
availed of to establish the equitable
grounds for impeaching that instru-
ment and not for the purpose of
setting up some other or different
contract to be substituted in its place.
If proper grounds exist and are shown
for defeating the deed, the equities
between the parties will be adjusted
according to the nature of the trans-
action and the facts and circum-
stances of the case, among which
may be included the real agreement.
§ 223.]
PAEOL OK EXTEINSIC EVIDENCE.
331
rule that such evidence is not admissible at law, except per-
haps in those states where the distinction between legal and
equitable procedure has been abrogated by the modern codes.'
A third person having a claim against .the grantor may show
by parol that the deed is a mortgage^^ But when the grantee
in an absolute deed has reconveyed to an innocent purchaser
without notice of the true agreement between the parties, such
parol evidence will not be received.'
Where specific performance of a contract is asked,* the
defendant is permitted to show by parol evidence that the
written contract does not, either because of fraud or mistake,
represent the real intention of the parties.* On the other
hand, where the plaintiff asks for a reformation of the con-
tract on the grounds of mistake and its specific performance
as reformed, the cases are at variance. The American cases
hold that reformation and' specific performance may be ob-
tained in one action by the introduction of parol evidence
by the plaintiff, irrespective of the performance by him of
the parol portion of the contract.* The English cases hold
It does not violate the statute of
frauds to admit parol evidence of
the real agreement as an element in
the proof of fraud or other vice in
the transaction which is relied on to
defeat the written instrument.''
iBrainerd v. Brainerd, 15 Conn.
575; Bragg v. Massie, 38 Ala. 89;
Hogel V. Lindell, 10 Mo. 483; Flint
V. Sheldon, 13 Mass. 443 ; Brinkman
V. Jones, 44 Wis. 498; Jackson v.
Lodge, 36 Cal. 28; Webb v.. Rice, 6
Hill (N. Y.), 319; Stinchfield v. Milli-
ken, 71 Me. 567.
2 Walter V. Cronly, 14 Wend. (N. Y.)
63 ; Allen v. Kemp, 39 Iowa, 453.
SMaxfield v. Patchen, 39 111. 39;
Baugher v. Merryman, 33 Md. 185;
Ehines v. Baird, 41 Pa. St. 356. In
Buckman v. Alwood, 71 111. 155, the
court said : •' It will be perceived
that in none of these cases did the
court attempt to range the jurisdic-
tion to turn an absolute deed into a
mortgage by parol evidence under
any specific head of equity, such as
fraud, accident or mistake, but the
rule seems to have grown into rec-
ognition as an independent head of
equity. Still it must have its founda-
tion in this: that where the transac-
tion is shown to have been meant as
a security for a loan, the deed will
have the character of a mortgage
without other proof of fraud than is
implied in showing that a convey-
ance taken for the mutual benefit of
both parties has been appropriated
solely to the use of the grantee."
^Quinn v. Roath, 37 Conn. 16;
Coles V. Brown, 10 Paige, 586; Berry
v. Whitney, 40 . Mich. 65 ; Wood-
worth V. Cook, 3 Blatohf. 151 ; Ryno
V. Darby, 30 N. J. Eq. 31 ; Cathcart
V. Robinson, 5 Pet. 363 ; Mansfield v.
Sherwin, 81 Me. 365; Ring v. Ash-
worth, 3 Iowa. 453 ; Caldwell v. De-
pew, 40 Minn. 528. See, also, Tiede-
man on Equity, § 198.
5 Bellows V. Stone, 14 N. H. 175;
332
PAROL OE EXTEINSIO EVIDENCE.
[§ 223.
that this cannot be done unless there has been a part per-
formance of the parol portion.' But where cancellation or
reformation only is asked, it is well settled that parol evi-
dence is admissible to establish the fraud or mistake as a
basis for the relief .demanded.^
Grass v. Hurlbert, 103 Mass. 24, 41 ;
Hunter v. Bilyeu, 30 111. 228 ; Quinn
V. Eoath, 37 Conn. 16 ; Gillespie v.
Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. 585; Beardsley
V. Knight, 10 Vt. 185; Gower v.
Sterner, 3 Whart. 75 ; Moale v. Bu-
chanan, 11 Gill & J. 314'; Newsom
V. BuflEerton, 1 Dev. Eq. 383 ; Mur-
phy V. Eooney, 45 Cal. 78 ; Mosby v.
Wall, 23 Miss. 81; Hallam v. Corlett,
71 Iowa, 446.
1 Tiedeman on Equity, § 198, citing
cases.
2 McCloskey v. McCormick, 44 111.
336; Wurzburger v. Merie, 20 La.
Ann. 415; McCann v. Letcher, 8 B.
Mon. 320; Keyton v. Brawford, 5
Gratt. 39 ; Larkins v. Biddle, 21 Ala.
253; Peterson v. Grover, 20 Me. 463;
Langdon v. Keith, 9 Vt. 299 ; Vree-
land V. Biarahall, 28 N. J. Eq. 85;,
Sylvius V. Kosek, 117 Pa. St. 67;
Jarrell v. Jarrell, 27 W. Va. 743;
Cox V. "Woods, 67 Cal. 817; Smith v
Butler, 11 Greg. 46; Crockett v.
Crockett, 73 Ga. 647; Jackson v.
Maybee, 21 Fla. 633 ; Bond v. Dorsey,
65 Md. 310; Giles v. Hunter, 103
N.'C. 194; Fritzler v. Robinson, 70
Iowa, 500. See, also, Tiedeman on
Equity, g 198, where this subject is
fully discussed.
CHAPTER XVII.
PRESUMPTIONS.
§ 324.
225.
326.
227.
228,
229.
Definition and classification.
Presumptions of law and fact
distinguished.
Presumptions of fact.
Presumptions from adverse
possession and prescription.
Presumptions from lapse of
time.
Presumptions from posses-
sion.
§ 230. Presumptions from the usual
course of trade.
331. Lawfulness — Continuity —
Sanity — Insanity.
333. Presumptions as to jurisdic-
tion.
238. Presumptions of life, death
and survivorship.
234. Legitimacy — Innocence —
Malice.
§224. Definition and classification. — Presumptions, as
they are employed in the law of evidence, are divided into
presumptions of law and presumptions of fact, while the
former are subdivided into those which are conclusive and
those which are rebuttable. A conclusive, or, as it is some-
times called, an absolute or imperative presumption of law,
may be defined as a ruje of law by which, upon the produc-
tion (5f certain evidence, or upon the proof of a certain fact,
the judge is bound by law to regard some other fact as proved,
to instruct the jury to that effect, and to exclude any evidence
to the contrary, however satisfactory or convincing it may be.
A presumption of law is rebuttable or disputable when its
effect is to compel the court to draw a particular inference
from a particular fact, or from particular evidence (?'. e., to
consider some other fact as proved), unless and until the cor-
rectness of such inference is disproved.' It will be seen that
the effect of the operation of presumptions of law is to take
the case out of the hands of the jury by forbidding or dis-
pensing with evidence to controvert or disprove the facts
which are presumed to be true. This result always occurs in
the case of conclusive presumptions, and for this reason this
'Sir Fitz James Stephen, in his v. Guild, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 133; Ul-
Digest of Evidence, art. 1. See Lyon rich v. Ulrieh, 186 N. Y. 120.
334: ' PRESUMPTIONS. [§ 225.
class of presumptions, for all practical purposes, is hardly dis-
tinguishable from positive legal rules. Indeed it may be cor-
rectly said that a conclusive presumption of law is only a rule
of substantive law statedi in terms of the law of evidence,
which, like all rules of law, is to be determined and ex-
pounded by the court alone, the judicial exposition and in-
struction being in every case obligatory on the jury. Thus,
the presumption of law that a boy under the age of fourteen
years is incapable of the crime of rape is a positive maxim of
the common law, and would apply whenever a person is ac-
cused of that crime, even though no evidence is introduced
to show that he did or did not commit it.' So generally is
this recognized, that indisputable or conclusive presumptions
are now seldom regarded by the courts solely as rules of
evidence.
The common-law conclusive presumptions have been so'far
superseded by statutes of limitation that in the modern codes
of evidence it has not been considered necessary to recognize
their existence as rules of evidence.^
§ 225. Presumptions of law and of fact distinguished.—
A presumption of fact is an inference or a deduction which
any sensible man who is possessed of average reasoning pow-
ers may draw from certain facts coming under hi$ considera-
tion, provided those facts are not disproved by evidence of the
same sort as that by which they are supported.'
Direct evidence of a fact in issue is always desirable. But
this is often Impossible to obtain. So if some other fact is
proved which is a concomitant circumstance usually attendant
upon the fact in issue according to the experience of average
men, a presumption of the existence of the latter fact, or, to
use a short term, a "presumption of fact," arises which is
valid until it is rebutted by proof of a contradictory fact.
The doctrine regulating presumptions of fact is largely the
1 McKinney v. State (Fla., 1892), 11 town, 34 N. H. 365 ; Oaks v. Weller,
S. Rep. 732, 16 Vt. 71; Hilton v. Bender, 69 N.
2 In the following cases presump- Y. 75; Cranan v. New Orleans, 16
tions are defined and discussed: In- La. Anri. 374.
surance Co. v. Weide, 11 Wall. 3 Gardner v, Gardner, L. R. 3 App.
(U. S.) 441 ; Jackson v, Marford, 7 Cases, 723, 734.
Wend. (N. Y.) 63; Bow v. Allen-
§ 225.]: PEE8TIMPTIONS. 335
basis for the rules governing the a(Jinissibility and sufficiency
of circumstantial evidence. In the first place, it may be said
that a presumption of fact derives its main, if not its only,
value and force from its probability and from the closeness
and clearness of the logical connection which exists between,
the fact or facts which have been proved and the inference
which is drawn. In other words, it is an inference " of a fact
from a fact," and the test is the relevancy of the facts proved
which constitute the premises to the doubtful but probable
fact which has been inferred and which is the conclusion of
the syllogism thus created.^
It should not be considered, however, that all presumptions
of law are illogical and arbitrary, though they do not all by
any means possess equal logical validity. Thus, it is clear that
many which are conclusive and which are now embodied in
statutes of limitation were originally adopted from considera-
tions of expediency ^ to protect vested rights and prevent the
mischievous stirring up of controversies supposed to be settled.'
So also rebuttable presumptions are not wholly exempt from
the criticism that they are improbable and illogical, as for
examples the common presumption that an accused person is
innocent till he is proved guilty, or the ver}' numerous mod-
ern class of rebuttable presumptions which have been created
by statute. Again, the two classes are distinguished by the
fact that presumptions of law, both rebuttable and conclusive,
are applied to classes of objects, and they have been subjected
to and are governed by well-settled rules, thus forming a part
of an intricate and systematic department of jurisprudence.
Presumptions of fact are invariably permissible, never ob-
ligatory on the jury. They may or they may not be drawn
by the jury from the circumstances, according as the juror?
believe or disbelieve the facts which are produced before
them and which are claimed to be proved by direct evidence.
1 In Roberts V. People, 9 Colo. 474, 2 See Welch v. Saokett, 13 Wis.
the court, by Beck, C. J., defines a 357.
presumption of fact as "an infer- 3 " Prescription is a legal fiction to
ence of the existence of a certain quiet ancient possession." Folsom
fact arising from its necessary and v. Freeborn, 13 R, I, 305.
usual connection with other facts
which are known,"
336' PEESUMPTIONS. [§ 225.
If, therefore, no presumption of law has arisen on the evidence
as introduced, it is error for the court to instruct the jurj'^ that
"a presumption arises on certain evidence," meaning thereby
only a presumption of fact, or that the evidence is sufficient
to justify a presumption of fact; for whether a presumption
of fact arises or not, and the sufficiency of the evidence to
support it, are questions for the jury to decide upon the evi-
dence before them.^ When made they do not arise by the
direct emplo3'^ment of legal rules, but according to the reason-
ing process and experience of average men, being the most
probable inferences from the facts of the case.^
A presumption of law is binding on the court and must be
drawn by it whenever certain evidence is given, and, -(vhether
conclusive or not, the law, regarding it as law, is binding on
the jury if they believe the basic facts are proved. If it is
a conclusive presumption of law the judge has no power to
admit, or the jury to consider, any evidence to the contrary;
but if it is rebuttable, then it is only obligatory upon the
jury, provided no evidence to contradict it is offered sufficient
to remove the particular case under consideration out of the
class in which by law it is prima facie presumed to be in-
cluded.
"Facts which are presumed by the jury are proved as
effectually as facts of which direct evidence is given." ' But,
as has been elsewhere explained in the analogous case of cir-
cumstantial evidence, the foundation fact from which the
inference is made must be supported by some direct evidence
sufficient to furnish a basis in the minds of reasonable and
intelligent men for the presumption of fact. In some depart-
ments of scientific investigation and intellectual activity it is
permissible to infer a series or system of facts in a logical
1 Stone V. Geyser, etc. Co., 52 Cal. be considered imports that there
315 ; Allison v. State, 43 Ind. 354 ; may be a presumption of fact. But
Read v. Hurd, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 408. generally it must be left to the jury
2 In Com. V. Briant, 143 Mass. 463, to say whether there is one, and in
the court said: "The proposition many cases that is the main ques-
that there is evidence for the jury tion they have to decide." See,
to consider is not identical with the also. Com. v. Stevenson, 143 Mass.
proposition that evidence if believed 146.
raises a presumption of fact. The 'Dickens v. Mahana, 21 How. (CJ,
proposition that there is evidence to S.) 283.
§ 226.] PRESUMPTIONS. 337
sequence or connection based upon one or two facts of which
alone direct proof has been given. Inferences are deduced
from inferences; the intervening facts, which should be proved
to secure the validity of the hypothesis or final inference, bein^
taken for granted, upon the theory of the experienced invari-
ability and uniformity of the laws of the physical universe.'
]3ut where the springs of human action and the motives which
l)rompt men in their conduct towards their fellows are con-
cerned, no inferences are allowed to be drawn from other
inferences, and any presumption of fact must be an immediate
inference or conclusion from facts directly proved. So, too,
the jury should not be allowed to presume certain material
facts of which no evidence has been given-, merely from a re-
buttable presumption of law with which the facts have only a
remote connection if any.^ Thus, if money is alleged to have
been misappropriated by a fiduciary whose duty it was to pay
the money to some third person, the jury have no right to
presume that the money has been properly paid over where
the only basis for this presumption of fact is the rule that
everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty and that
private and public oflBcials are presumed to have done their
duty.
The legislature has the power, within constitutional limits,
to establish statutory presumptions of law both conclusive
and rebuttable. This power has been repeatedly exercised in
the enactment of criminal statutes, and, if properly executed,
is calculated to enlarge the scope of the power of the jury by
creating an issue of fact to be submitted to them which, were
there no presumption, would probably be taken from them
upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient.
§ 226. Presumptions of fact — Accomplices. — Though pre-
sumptions of fact cannot with strictness of language be said
to form a part of the law of evidence,' yet it is an almost uni-
versal custom for the judge, in his discretion, to suggest to
the jury certain rules which they may employ in werghing
evidence, and to point out certain inferences of fact which
1 Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U. S. Ins. Co. , 100 U. S. 698 ; Grand Trunk,
295. etc. Co. v. Richardson, 91 U. S. 470.
2 United States v. Ross, 92 U. S. n Greenl. on Et., § 44.
383 ; Manning v. Hancock Mut. Life
23
338 PRESUMPTIONS. [§ 227.
they may, but need not necessarily ,i draw therefrom. If evi-
dence is submitted, it is for them exclusively to say whether
thej'' will draw any inference therefrom, and this they may
do unaffected by motives of expediency and concerned only
to ascertain the truth.
No presumption of law exists against the testimony of an
accomplice, and the jury may, in the absence of a statute,
convict upon his uncorroborated testimony alone, if they are
satisfied of its truth bej'ond a reasonable doubt.^ An acces-
sory after the fact is not an accomplice.' But judges have
been so long accustomed to instruct that the testimony of an
accomplice should be received with caution, or should be cor-
roborated by satisfactory evidence from some witness not im-
plicated, that a failure to do so would generally be reversible
error.*
§ 227. Presumptions from adverse possession and pre-
scription.— A common class of presumptions which are in
many cases positive rules of the statute law is that which in-
cludes those arising from the adverse possession of real prop-
erty or from the fact that an obligation either of the nature
1 See § 228. be had upon the uncorroborated tes-
2 See post, §g 324, 335 ; Jenkins v. timony of an accomplice, but which.
State (Fla., 1893), 12 S. Rep. 677; at the same time, allows the court
State V. Minor (Mo., 1893), 22 S. W. to charge in the most absolute terms
Eep. 1085 ; State v. Jackson, 106 Mo. that his testimony must be corrob-
174; Rountree v. State, "88 Ga. 457; orated, the court in Collins v. People,
Woods V, Com., 86 Va. 929; United 98 111. 584, said: "In many, prob-
States V. Lancaster, 44 Fed. Rep. ably in most, cases the evidence of
896; Robinson v. State, 84 Ga. 674; an accomplice, uncorroborated, . . .
Cheatham v. State, 7 S. Eep. 204. will not satisfy the honest judgment
3 State V. Umble (Mo., 1893), 22 S. beyond a reasonable doubt, and then
W. Rep. 380. it is clearly insufficient to authorize
■• United States v. Ybanez, 58 Fed. a verdict of guilty. But there may
Eep. 536 ; Martin v. State, 21 Tex. App. frequently occur other cases, where,
1; People v. White, 63 Hun, 114; from all the circumstances, the hon-
State V. Jackson, 106 Mo. 174; State est judgment will be as thoroughly
V. Henderson, 50 N. W. Rep. 758; satisfied from the evidence of the
Malachi v. State, 89 Ala. 134; Peo- accomplice of the guilt of the de-
ple V. Chadwick, 25 Pac. Rep. 737 ; fendant as it is possible it could be
Wicks V. State, 88 Tex. App. 448; satisfied from human testimony; and
Bernhard v. State, 76 Ga. 613. In in such case it would be an outrage
considering the rather anomalous upon the administration of justice to
rule which permits a conviction to acquit."
§ 227.] PBESUMPTIONS. 339
of .a simple contract or of a writing under seal has been cre-
ated and the disseizee or obligee has neglected to enforce his
right. The tortious possession of a disseizor may create a
conclusive presumption of title either by the existence of the
disseizin for the period required by the statute of limitations
or by estoppel. By the statute of limitation of real actions
of 21 Jao. 1, the period of limitation for the recovery of real
property was fixed at twenty years from the date that the
right of action accrued. In the United States the same period
has been generally adopted, though in many of the states it
has been reduced to ten.^ The provisions of the various stat-
utes of limitation should in each case be consulted, and as
these statutes vary widely it is impossible to discuss them at
length in this place. It may be said, however, that, in the
absence of express provision, they do not run against the
United States or against a state commonwealth,^ or against
persons who are under the disabilities of infancy or of in-
sanity when the right of action accrues.'
It was a rule of the common law that the continuous and
uninterrupted enjoyment of an incorporeal hereditament or
easement for a period beyond the memory of man would create
a title by prescription, upon the legal fiction that a valid grant
had been made but that the grant had been lost.^ In con-
sequence of the adoption of statutes of limitation the courts
now apply the same period of limitation to incorporeal as to
corporeal hereditaments;' but as this application rests solely
lAngell on Limitations, 1-6, 65 ^Lindsey v. Miller, 3 Pet. 660;
et seq. ; Tiedeman on Real Property, United States v. Thompson, 98 U. S.
ch. XX, g§ 713-717; Detweiler v. 489 ; Gardiner v. Miller, 47 Cal. 570 ;
Shultheis, 133 Ind. 155 ; Charles v, Oaksmith v. Johnson, 93 U. S. 343 ;
Morrow, 99 Mo. 638; 13 S. W. Rep. Kingnian v. Sparrow, 18 Barb. 301 ;
903 ; Norris v. Moody, 84 Cal. 143. United States v. Beebe, 17 Fed. Rep.
The adverse possession and disseizin 36 ; Ward v. Bartholomew, 6 Pick,
must have been continuous and un- 409.
interrupted during the statutory s Miller v. Texas, 133 U. S. 663 ;
period. Malloy v. Bruden, 88 N. C. Gage v. Smith, 37 Conn. 74 ; Little
331; Bradley v. West, 60 Mo. 33
Satterwhite v. Rosser, 61 Tex. 166
McName v. Morland, 36 Iowa, 96
V. Downing, 37 N. H. 355; Edso v.
Munsell, 10 Allen, 557.
4 3B1. Com., g§ 363, 366.
Unger v. Mooney , 63 Cal. 586 ; Tiede- 5 Tiedeman on Real Property, § 599 ;
man on Real Property and cases Richard v. Williams, 7 AVheat. 59;
cited. Stearns v. Jones, 12 Allen, 583; Wat-
340
PEESTJMPTIONS.
[§ 227.
upon analogy, the lapse of the period has been held by sQme
courts in the case of easements to create a disputable presump-
tion, or a presumption of fact which can be rebutted by evi-
dence that there never had been any grant.^ "The majority
of the cases, hov?ever, sustains the proposition that the presump-
tion of an original grant, arising from the uninterrupted and
continuous enjoyment of an incorporeal hereditament, is con-
clusive.^
kins V. Peck, 13 N. H. 360 ; Burdell
V. Blain, 66 Gra. 170 ; Jones v. Crow,
32 Pa. St. 398 ; Carlisle v. Cooper, 19
ISr. J. Eq. 256 ; Nichols v. Wentworth,
100 N. Y. 455 ; Folsom v. Freeborn,
13 R. I. 205; Smith v. Putnam, 62
N. H. 869; Wallace v. Uni. PreS. Ch.,
Ill Pa. St. 164; McKenzie v. Elliott
(111., 1890), 24 N. E. Rep. 965.
iSee cases cited supra; Tinkham
V. Arnold, 3 Me. 120 ; Parker v. Foote,
19 Wend. 309 ; Brookline v. Mackin-
tosh, 133 Mass. 226; Sherwood v.
Burr, 4 Day, 244 ; Thomas v. Eng-
land, 71 Cal. 458 ; Tredwell v. Inslee,
130 N. Y. 458.
2 Ingraham v. Hutchison, 2 Conn.
584; Carter v. Tinicum Co., 77 Pa.
St. 310 (right of fishery); Whitney
V. Cotton Mills (Mass., 1890), 24 N. E.
Rep. 774 ; Rooker v. Perkins, 14 Wis.
557; McGeorge v. Hoffman (Pa.,
1890), 19 Atl. Rep. 413; Bolivar v.
Nepensett, 16 Pick. 241 ; Rioard v.
Williams, 7 Wheat. 109 ; Corning v.
Gould, 16 Wend. 531 ; Campbell v.
West, 44 Cal. 646 ; Stevenson v. Wal-
lace, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 77 ; Arimond v.
Green Bay, etc., 35 Wis. 41 ; Dowling
V. Hennings, 20 Md. 180 ; Louisville,
etc. Co. V. Hays, 11 Tenn.382 ; Conklin
V. Boyd, 46 Mich. 56 ; Smith v. Ben-
nett, 1 Jones (N. C), 372 ; Warren v.
Jacksonville, 15 111. 236 ; Carlisle v.
Cooper, 19 N. J. Eq. 256; Benton
V. Eobbins, 71 N. C. 388; Tracy
V. Atherton, 36 Vt. 503. In the
case of easements no presumption
arises in favor of the public against
a private owner of lands. War-
ren V. Jacksonville, 15 111. 236;
Pearsall v. Post, 20 Wend. 131 ; 23
id. 440; Curtis v. Kessler, 14 Barb.
511; Johnson v. Duer (Mo., 1893), 31
S. W. Rep. 800. "The statutes (of
limitation) confer no right of action.
They restrict the period within which
the right, otherwise unlimited, might
be asserted. They are founded upon
the general experience that claims
which are valid are not usually al-
lowed to remain neglected. The
lapse of years, without any attempt to
enforce a demand, creates, therefore,
a presumption against its original
validity or that it has ceased to sub-
sist. The presumption is made by
these statutes a positive bar; and
they thus become statutes of repose,
protecting parties from prosecution
of stale claims, when by loss of the
evidence by the death of some wit-
nesses and the imperfect recollection
of others, or the destruction of doc-
uments, it might be impossible to es-
tablish the truth. Their policy is to
encoui'age promptitude in the pros-
ecution of remedies. For this pur-
pose they prescribe what is supposed
to be a reasonable period." Field, J.,
in Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Ins.
Co., 7 Wall. 390, cited in Anderson's
Law Diet., p. 629.
§ 228.] PEESUMPTIONS. 341
§ 238. Presumptions from the lapse of time. — In certain
transactions which are not of record, a presumption of regu-
larity is held to be created by the lapse of time and the silence
or the actions of the parties. The presumption thus created
is largely the result of the application of the principles of
estoppel in pais and of the statute of limitations. Accordingly,
where a sale of land is authorized either by statute ^ or by
license or a judgment of a court, it will be presumed prima
facie from the lapse of time that all the required formalities
and details have been observed. The power to act being
proved or admitted, it will be inferred that all the usual pre-
cautions were taken necessary to a valid execution of the
power. And this inference is strengthened by the silence of
the parties who are concerned and the hardship of requiring
the production of written proof of minute details of transac-
tions of which no record is usually made.
The length of time which will create this presumption varies
according to the circumstances of the case; for although the
lapse of thirty years has been required in some cases, other
cases hold that a much shorter period will suffice.^
"Where an estate was' vested in trustees it may be presumed
that they have faithfully performed their duties and executed
a conveyance or surrender to the beneficiary on the termina-
tion of the trust.' Again, where possession of real property
has been long, continuous and uninterrupted, so that it is under
the statute of limitation prima facie lawful, and the things
done and omitted to be done in respect thereto by the parties
for long periods can be explained satisfactorily only upon the
hypothesis of the existence of a deed, the execution of a deed
may be presumed.*
1 Stead V. Corse, 4 Cranch, 403; s Moore v. Jackson, 4 Wend. (N. Y.)
Hilton V. Bender, 69 N. Y. 75, apply- 59 ; Churph v. Mott, 7 Paige (N. Y.),
iog this rule to tax sales. 77; Mathews v. Ward, 10 Gill & J.
2 King V. Little, 1 Cush. 436; Pe- 443.
jepscot V. Ransom, 14 Mass. 145 ; Em- < Fletcher v. Fuller, 130 U. S. 534,
mens V. Oldham, 13 Tex. 18 ; Society 551, 553 ; Valentine v. Piper, 83 Pick.
V. Young, 3 N. H. 310; Cobleigh v. 85 ; Van Dyck v. Van Buren, 1 Caines,
Young, 15 id. 493; Allegheny v. Wil- 84; Knox v. Jenks, 7 Mass. 488. Cf.
son, 25 Pa. St. 333; Freeman v. House v. Montgomery, 19 Mo. App.
Thayer, 33 Me. 76. Cf. Hilton v. 170.
Bender, supra.
342 PEESUMPTIONS. [§ 229.
§229. Presumptions from possession. — As respects per-
sonal property, a presumption of ownership arises from evi-
dence that a person has exercised acts of possession over it.^
This presumption is slight, and is rebutted by facts tending
to show, for example, that the goods were stolen. A contrary
presumption is then created which, if not rebutted by the
partjj- in whose possession the stolen goods have been found,
may result in fastening the theft upon him.^
Upon the general question whether the possession of the
fruits of crime, as of a forged writing, of counterfeit money,
or goods taken from a house where a burglary had been com-
mitted, causes any presumption of guilt to attach to their
possessor, the courts are divided. It was at one time held,
nor is this rule without the support of modern cases, that a
presumption of law was created that a person in whose pos-
session the results of crime recently committed were found
was 'prima facie concerned in the crime committed.' The
most recent decisions, however, repudiate this doctrine that
any presumption of law arises; and doubtless the true mod-
ern rule is that the presumption, if any, is one of fact. In
other words, the fact of possession is now considered as merely
a circumstance to be submitted to and weighed by the jury
in determining the guilt of the accused.* While the effect of
such evidence is for the jury, whether it is admissible depends
largely upon the shortness of the time which has elapsed
I Rankin v. Bell, 19 S. W. Rep. 874 ; s State v. Kelly, 73 Mo. 608 ; People
National Bank v. Richardson, 3 N. Y. v. Weldon, 111 N. Y. 569 ; Rex v.
S. 804; Powers v. Braley, 41 Mo. Fuller, Rusa. & Ry. 308; Stover v.
App. 556; Gregg v. Mallett, 15 S. E. People, 56 N. Y. 316; State v. Owa-
Rep. 936; 111 N. C. 74; Magee y, ley, 111 Mo. 450; McLain v. State
Scott, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 150; Millay v. (Neb., 1885), 7 Grim. L. Mag. 199.
Butts, 35 Me.^.l39; Fish v. Scut, 31 4 State v. Eights, 83 N. C. 676
Barb. 33; Stoddard v. Buxton, 41 State v. Raymond, 46 Conn. 345
Iowa, 583. The possession of a house Ayres v. State, 31 Tex. App. 399
raises no presumption of ownership Ryan v. State, 83 Wis. 486; Salv
of personalty contained in but not linger v. People, 108 III. 341 ; State
annexed to it. Garaher v. Insurance v. Hodge, 50 N. H. 510; State v.
Co., 63 Hun, 83. Bishop, 51 Vt. 387; People v. Mitch-
^ State V. Moore, 101 Mo. 316; ell, 55 Gal. 336; Stuart v. People, 43
State V. Van "Winkle, 80 Iowa, 15; Mich. 255; Galvin v. State, 93 Ind.
Reed v. State (Ark., 1891), 16 S. W. 550.
Rep. 819.
§ 229.] PEBSUMPTIONS. 343
since the commission of the crime and the actual knowledge
of the prisoner that the goods were in his possession.^
While the wilful mutilation or destruction of written evidence
raises a prima facie presumption of law that it was not done
innocently and that its production intact would have been
injurious to the interest of the person who is guilty of de-
stroying or mutilating it,^ the mere invention of verbal evi-
dence or false testimony on the witness stand creates no pre-
sumption of law, but is a circumstance to be considered by
the jury ' bearing on the credit they will give the witness.
If, however, the perjury is deliberate and upon material facts,
the jury may infer, under the maxim falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus^ that the testimony of the witness is wholly unworthy
of belief, though not compelled to do so by any rule of law.
Under peculiar and special circumstances the suppression
of evidence or a refusal to produce it maj"^ raise a presumption
that its tenor and effect would be unfavorable to the persons
in whose possession it is known to be.' So, if a wrong or in-
jury which is inflicted not only substantially damages a party,
but at the same time deprives him of the means of showing
the nature and extent of his damage, the law will endeavor
to supply the loss and the resulting insufficiency of proof by
raising all reasonable presumptions against the evil doer and
in favor of the injured person.* But generally the fact that
iGablick V. People, 40 Mich. 293; Co. Ct. Eep. 31; Cross v. Bell, 34
Com. V. Talbot, 2 Allen (Mass.), 161 ; N. H. 85 ; Carpenter v. Willy, 26
Payne v. State, 21 Tex. App. 184; Atl. Rep. 488; Gulf, etc. Co. v.
State V. Scott (Mo., 1893), 19 S. W. Ellis, 54 Fed. Rep. 481; Werner v.
Rep. 89; State v. Owsley, 111 Mo. Litzinger, 45 Mo. App. 106; Toomey
450; Smathers V. State, 46 Ind. 447; t. Lyman, 61 Hun, 623; Atl. Ins.
Sahlinger v. People, 103 111. 341 ; Co. v. Holcomb, 88 Ga. 9 ; Wimer v.
State V. Jennett, 88 N. C. 605. Smith, 33 Greg. 469; Bagley v. Mc-
2 See ante, § 139 ; Blade v. Noland, Mickle, 9 Cal. 430.
13 Wend. 173; 1 Kent's Com. 157; « Little Pittsburg Con. Mining Co.
Mersman v. Werges, 113 U. S. 141. v. Little Chief Cons. Mining Co., 11
See § 129; Tobin v. Shaw, 45 Me. Colo. 333; 7 Am. St. Rep. 326; Hart
331. V. Ten Eyck, 2 Johns. Ch. 63, 108 ;
'1 Greenl. on Ev., §37; Wills Clark v. Miller, 4 Wend. 628. If by
on Cir. Ev. 113. See, also, post, statute a witness is precluded from
§ 342a; State v. Knapp, 45 N. H. testifying, e. g., a wife in an action
148. brought by the husband for her se-
■* See § 342a. duction, her failure to testify of
5 Packer v, Vande vender, 13 Pa. course creates no presumption.
844
PEESUMPTIONS.
[§ 22^.
a party produces no witnesses, or, having produced them, fails
to examine them,' or fails to produce any particular witness,^
will not justify the jury in drawing any inference that the
evidence of his opponent is true if, upon the facts of the case,
they are not satisfied with its credibility.' So, generally, the
non-production of books or papers does not necessarily create
the presumption that they contain entries which would prove
injurious to the party in whose possession they are and who
has been notified to produce them.^ But where certain docu-
ments of a series constituting muniments of title were sup-
pressed by their admitted holder, it was held that an inference
of fact might be drawn in the absence of clear evidence of
their contents that, had they been produced, they would have
proved unfavorable to him.' If a note, bond or similar se-
curity be found in the hands of the maker or obligor after
maturity, it will be presumed to have been paid,^ and this
Adams v. Maine, 3 Ind. App. 333;
39 N. E. Rep. 793. See ante, g 166.
But where one is charged with
fraud, his failure to testify (Conn.
Mut. L. Ins. Co. V. Smith (Mo.,
1893), 33 S. W. Rep, 633), or to pro-
duce documents in his possession,
creates a presumption against him.
Clifton V. United States, 4 How.
(U. S.) 343. A refusal to produce
property claimed by another raises
a presumption that its value is as
stated by the claimant. Sutton v.
Davenport, 37 L. J. C. P. 54.
1 Haynes v. McRae (Ala., 1893), 11
S. Rep. 370.
2 Scovill V. Baldwin, 37 Conn. 316;
Cramer v. Burlington, 49 Iowa, 313 ;
Gardner v. Benedict, 37 N. Y. S. 8.
3 Enos V. St. Paul, etc. Co. (S. D. ,
1893), 57 N. W. Rep. 919; Meagley
V. Hoyt, 135 N. Y. 771; Sauer v.
Union Oil Co., 9 S. Rep. 566; Cross
V. Lake, etc. Co., 69 Mich. 363; 37
N. W. Rep. 361; Mooney v. Hol-
comb, 15 Greg. 639; 16 Pac. Rep.
716; Diel v. Railway Co., 37 Mo.
App. 454.
* Thompson v. Thompson, 77 Ga.
693; Cartier v. Lumber Co., 35 111.
App. 449 ; Harrison v. Kiser, 79 Ga.
588; 4 S. E. Rep. 330; Jennings v. '
Railroad Co., 97 N. Y. 438; Reavis
V. Overinshaw, 105 N. C. 369.
'Jones V. Knauss, 31 N. J, Eq.
609 ; Thompson v. Thompson, 9 Ind.
333.
6 Porter v. Nelson, 131 Pa. St. 638;
Lindsay v. McCorniick, 5 S. E. Rep.
834 ; Turner v. Turner, 80 Cal. 141 ;
HoUenberg v. Lane, 47 Ark. 894;
Weidner v. Schweigert, 9 S. & R.
385. A note found among the papers
of the maker after his death will be
presumed to have been in his pos-
session during his life-time. Potts v.
Coleman, 86 Ala. 94. Though the
circumstance of the debtor's ability
to pay does not alone create a pre-
sumption of payment (Morrison v.
Collins, 137 Pa. St. 28), it may be
sufHcient in connection with the
fact that the creditor had abundant
opportunity to collect his debt. Bank
V. Howes, 33 Mo. App. 314.
§ 229.] PEEsaMPTioNS. 345
presumption, though usually rebuttable,^ has been held con-
clusive where the evidence was otherwise irreconcilable.^
A prima facie presumption of payment or delivery is also
created by the possession by the drawee of an order for money
or for the delivery of personal property.' That a deed has
been delivered will be presumed from the fact that it is found
in the possession of the grantee or of one claiming under him,
properly executed and aclinowledged,* although this presump-
tion may be rebutted by the fact that it was not recorded
until after the death of the grantor.^ So a deed will be pre-
sumed to have been executed and delivered on its date,^ though
it was acknowledged^ or recorded' subsequently. "Where
several documents are of even date they will be presumed to
have been executed in the order that will effectuate the ob-
ject intended.^ But it has been held that the delivery will be
presumed to have been made on the day the deed was ac-
knowledged,'" and this is necessarily the rule where the deed
itself is undated." This presumption of delivery on the date
of execution may be rebutted by showing a subsequent act-
ual delivery.'^ JSTo presumption is created by delivery to a
stranger, and in such a case the intention to deliver must be
1 Hawkins v. Harding, 37 111. App. 782 ; Windom v. Schappel, 39 Minn.
564. But see, contra, Emerson v. 85; 38 N. W. Eep. 757; Tuttle v.
Mills, 83 Tex. 385; Halfin v. "Wem- Eainey, 98 N. C. 513; Ward v.
pieman, 83 id. 885 ; Stephenson v. Dougherty, 75 Cal. 240 ; 17 Pac. Eep.
.Eichardson, 45 Mo. App. 544. 193; Crowder v. Searcy, 108 Mo. 97;
2 Hawkins v. Harding, 37 111. App. Vreeland v. Vreeland, 48 N. J. Eq.
564. 56.
3 Lane v. Farmer, 13 Ark. 63 ; Kin- s gcott v. Scott, 95 Mo. 300.
caid V. Kincaid, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) * See cases in note 4, supra.
17 ; Eamsou v. Adams, 17 Johns. "i People v. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 397.
(N. Y.) 130. 8 Robinson V. Wheeler, 25 N. Y. 253.
^Gifford V. Corrigan (N. Y.), 11 9 Williams v. Woods, 16 Md. 320.
N. E. Eep. 498; Meech v. Fowler, "Fontaine v. Sav. Inst., 57 Mo.
14 Ark. 29; Lyerly y. Wheeler, 13 561; Blanchard v. Tyler, 13 Mich.
Ired. 290; Darst v. Bates, 51 111. 439; 839; Loomis v. Pingree, 48 Me. 299,
Billings V. Stark, 15 Fla. 297; Tiede- 308; Henry v. Bradshaw, 20 Iowa,
man on E. P., § 813 ; Ward v. Lewis, 355.
4 Pick. 518 ; Dais' Appeal, 128 Pa. n Bank v. Mersereau, 3 Barb. Ch.
St. 572; Scobey v. Walker (Ind., 528.
1888), 15 N. W. Eep. 674; Criffen v. i2WyckoflE v. Eemsen, 11 Paige,
Griffen, 125 111. 430; 17 N. E. Eep. 564; Abb. Tr. Ev. 695.
346 PEESUMPTIONS. [§ 330.
express.^ Delivery and acceptance are concurrent acts, and
a prima facie presumption of acceptance by the grantee will
usually be created from his knowledge of the delivery and
from the benefit derived by him thereby.^ And in the case
of a grantee under disabilities, this presumption of acceptance
will be conclusive even if the grantee is ignorant of the con-
veyance and delivery.^ The ownership of goods named in a
bill of lading \s prima facie presumed to be in the consignee,*
while his possession of that document creates a presumption
that the merchandise was properly delivered to the carrier
and that he assented to its terms.'
§ 330. Presumptions from the usual course of trade. —
Every one is presumed to take proper care of his own affairs
and not to act against his own interests. From this principle,
?ind keeping in view Ihi care, promptness and diligence with
which men pursue the objects of their ambition, various pr'ima
facie presumptions have been recognized growing out of the
course of trade. So a check, note or bond properly signed
will, in the hands of a iona fide holder, be presumed to have
been delivered completely executed to the payee,^ even though
in the case of a bank-note the signature has been obliterated.'
So it is a general rule that a party who produces a note will
\iQ prima facie presumed to be its 'bona fide holder and to have
1 Maynard v. Maynard, 10 Mass. ^ Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How.
456; Folk v. Vara, 9 Rich, Ecj. 303; (U. S.) 100.
Cecil V. Beaver, 28 Iowa, 240; Lutes ^ Boorman v. Express Co., 31 Wis.
V. Reed, 138 Pa. St. 191; Tiedeman 153.
on R. P., §814. SHensel v. Chicago, etc. Co., 87
2 Giff ord V. Corrigan, 117 N. Y. Minn. 87. So, too, consideration in
257; Bowman v. Griffith, 35 Neb. such a case will be presumed and
361 ; Robinson v. Gould, 26 Iowa, need neither be expressed in the in-
93; Baker v. Haskell, 47 N. H. 479. strument, pleaded or given in evi-
3 Tiedeman on R. P., § 814; Spen- dence. Carnright v. Gray, 11 N. Y.
cer V. Carr, 45 N. Y. 410; Cecil v. S. 278; 37 N. E. Rep. 835; McClel-
Beaver, 28 Iowa, 241; Peavey v. land v. McClelland, 43 Mo. App. 33;
Tilton, 18 N. H. 153; Gregory v. Benedict v. Driggs, 34 Hun, 94;
Walker, 38 Ala. 36 ; Bank v. Bellis, Conger v. Armstrong, 3 John. Cas.
10 Cush. 378 ; Riyard v. Walker, 39 5 ; Norton v. Norton, 17 N. Y. St.
111. 413; Diefendorf v. Diefendorf, 8 Rep. 487.
N. Y. S. 617. 7 Murdock v. Union Bank, 3 Rob.
113; Smith v. Smith, 15 N. H. 55.
§ 230.] PEESUMPTIONS. 347
obtained it before maturity and for full value.^ Landlords
being usually prompt in collecting rent due them, the exist-
ence of a rent receipt for last month in the possession of the
tenant creates a 'prima facie presumption that all prior rent
has been paid; ^ and a settlement between parties having con-
tinuous dealings is presumed to cover all accounts between
them.' On the other hand, payment by check or in money,
unaccompanied by explanatory circumstances, will raise the
presumption not that a loan has been made, but that the payor
has liquidated a debt or paid to the payee funds belonging to
the latter.* If, however, it is shown that no debt existed, then
a loan will be presumed, as the law will not in such a case
presume a gift.'
Comprised in this class of presumptions from the usual course
of business are those created b}'- the well-recognized regularity
and promptness with which business is conducted in public
offices.' So it is said that a postmark furnishes a presumption
that a letter was in the mail at the time marked.'' A pre-
sumption which is sometimes considered merely a presumption
of fact,^ that a letter has promptly reached its destination,
arises on proof that it was duly addressed and mailed, post-
paid, to the addressee where he was living and received his
mail.^ So a message shown to have been delivered to a tele-
1 Collins V. Gilbert, 94 U. S. 753 ; ' Fletcher v. Braddyle, 3 Stark. 64 ;
Kidder v. Horrobbin, 72 N. Y. 169 ; New Haven Co. v. Mitchell, 15 Conn.
National State Bank v. Richardson, 206. Cf. Boon v. State, 37 Minn.
2 N. Y. S. 804. 426.
2 Hodgson V. Wight, 86 Me. 336 ; 8 Oregon S. S. Co. v. Otis, 100 N.
Brewer v. Knapp, 1 Pick. 332, 337. Y. 45.
3 Long V. Strauss, 24 N. E. Rep. SRos'enthal v. "Walker, 111 U. S.
664. Payment of rent by a tenant 185; Van Doren v. Liebman, 11 N.
raises a presumption that he ocou- Y. S. 769; Jensen v. McCorkle, 154
pied the premises. Bishop v. How- Pa. St. 353; Briggs v. Hervey, 130
ard, 2 B. & C. 100. Mass. 187; McCoy v. New York, 46
* Patton V. Ash, 7 Serg. & R. 116, Hun, 268 ; Bank v. McManigle, 69 Pa.
125; Seiple v. Seiple, 25 W. N. C. St. 156; Steiner v. Ellis, 7 S. Rep.
488; Gerding v. Walter, 39 Mo. 436; 803; Loud v. Merrill, 45 Me. 516;
Kuehler v. Adler, 78 N. Y. 287; Austin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571, 576.
Poucher v. State, 98 id. 433. See contra. Home Ins. Co. v. Maple
5,Nay V. Curley, 113 N. Y. 575; (Ind. , 1890), 37 N. E. Rep. 633 ; Hast-
Grey v. Grey, 47 id. 552. ings v. L. I. Co., 138 N. Y. 473.
* Worley V. Hineman (Ind., 1893), This presumption is confirmed by
33 N. E. Rep. 260. proof that a request to return if not
348
PEESTJMPTIONS.
[§ 230.
graph company will be prima facie presumed to have been
delivered by the latter.^
Though the courts of one state commonwealth do not take
judicial notice of the statutory or common law of another
state, or of a foreign country,^ it will be presumed, till the
contrary is shown, that the general rules of the common
law of England modified by statute prevail in all states ex-
cept in those such as, for example, Texas and Louisiana,'
whose jurisprudence is founded upon the Eoman civil law;*
while so far as the statutory law is concerned, though the au-
thorities are not harmonious, the weight of the decisions main-
tains the proposition that the statute law of any state will be
presumed -prima facie to be the same as that of the place of
trial.'
delivered was attached. Hedden v,
Roberts, 134 Mass. 38. If in order
to obtain a record a deed must be
properlj' stamped, it will be pre-
sumed that a deed recorded was
duly stamped though the record
does not show this fact. Collins v.
Valleau (Iowa, 1S89), 44 N. W. Eep.
904. See, also, as to certification of
judgments, Bailey v. Winn (Mo.,
1890), 12 S. W. Eep. 1045; Woolery
V. Grayson, 110 Ind. 149. See, also,
ante, §g 146, 148, 149.
1 Oregon Co. v. Otis, 100 N. Y.
451 ; Com. v. Jeffries, 89 Mass. 548.
aSeeposJ, § 343.
3 Brown v. Wright (Ark., Ig93), 23
S. W. Rep. 1022.
^ Cooper V. Reaney, 4 Minn. 538 ;
Lipe V. McClery, 41 111. App. 29;
Sandidge v. Hunt, 5 S. Rep. 55;
Holmes v. Broughton, 10 Wend.
(N. Y.) 75 ; Guardians v. Greene, 5
Binn. 558; Flato v. Mulhall, 73 Mo.
532; Reese v. Harris, 27 Ala, 301;
Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 658 ; Hyd-
rick V. Burke, 30 Ark. 124 ; Hickman
V. Alpaugh, 21 Cal. 225 ; Bollinger
V. Gallagher, 143 Pa. St. 205; Cluff v.
Mut. Ben. Ins. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.),
808; Mortimer v. Marder, 93 Cal.
173 ; Atkinson v. Atkinson, 75 La.
Ann. 491; Brown v. Philada. etc.
Co., 9 Fed. Eep. 185; Com. v. Kenny,
130 Mass. 387. " The common law of
England can be made part of our fed-
eral system only by legislative adop-
tion. The United States has no com-
mon law. Each state may have its
own local customs and common law.
The power of the United States is
expressed in the constitution, laws
and treaties. The English common
law was adopted by the original
thirteen colonies only so far as it
suited their conditions, from which
circumstances what is common law
in one state is not so considered
in another. The judicial decisions,
the usage and customs of the respect-
ive states determine to what extent
the common law has been intro-
duced into each state." Wheaton v.
Peters, 8 Pet. 658-59.
5 McDonald v. Mallory, 77 N. Y.
547 ; Brumhall v. Van Campen, 8
Minn. 13; Osborn v. Blackburn, 47
N. W. Rep. 175 ; St. Louis, etc. Co. v.
Weaver, 35 Kan. 413 ; Murphy v.
Collins, 131 Mass. 6 ; Hewitt v. Mor-
gan, 55 N. W. Rep. 478; Atchison,
etc. Co. V. Betts, 10 Colo. 431, Oon-
§ 231.] PEESUMPTIONS. 3i9
"With respect to foreign law, excepting the systems of juris-
prudence of those countries where the English common law
prevails, no presumptions are recognized ; and where the ques-
tion of extra-territorial law arises, the court will apply the
lex fori in all cases where the foreign law is not pleaded and
proved by the party .^
As the principles of the law merchant are recognized and
prevail in all civilized states, it will be presumed that the law
of a foreign state on any matter of commerce is identical with
the law of the place of trial.^
§231. Lawfulness — Continuity — Sanity and insanity.—
It is generally presumed that the law has been obeyed and
that public officials have done their duty.' JSTot only are offi-
cials presumed to have observed the law which they have been
sworn to execute or mterpret, but private persons* are also
presumed, in the absence of contrary proof, in their business
and social relations, to have observed the rules of law and
equity and the principles of morality.^ So where a written
instrument purports to be executed by the officers of a private
corporation, it will be presumed that they possessed the power
to execute it, and that its execution was actually authorized
by the corporation.'
<m, as to foreign country. West. (Tex., 1893), 23 S. W. Rep. 984. This
U. T. Co. V. Way, 83 Ala. 542. See, presumption obtains only between
supporting text, Amer. Oak. L. Co. third parties. It cannot be invoked
V. Standard, etc. Co. (Utah., 1893), in behalf of the officer himself.
33 Pac. Rep. 246 ; Haggin v. Haggin, O'Brien v. McCann, 58 N. Y. 373.
35 Neb. 575; Bierhaus v. W. U. T. « Arent v. Squire, 1 Daly, 847.
Co. (Ind., 1898), 34 N. E. Rep. 581. 5 Ross v. Bedell, 5 Duer, 463; Peo-
ipiato V. Mulhall, 73 Mo. 533; pie v. Pease, 37 N. Y. 45 ; Thompson
Savage v. O'Neill, 44 N. Y. 298; v. Newlin, 8 Ired. Eq. 33; Eoseville
Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 236. As to v. Gilbert, 34 111. App. 834; Fenlon v.
the proof of foreign laws, see § 148. Dempsey, 50 Hun, 131 ; Wheeler v.
2 Dubois V. Mason, 137 Mass. 37. Wheeler, 3 N. Y. S. 496, It seems,
Cf. §§ 148, 149, ante. however, that no presumption ob-
3 Sumner v. Peeble, 5 "Wash. St. tains that a physician is reasonably
471; Gridley v. College of St. Fran- skillful (Columbus v. Strasner (Ind.,
cis, 137 N. Y. 337 ; Broder v. Conklin 1893), 34 N. E. Eep. 5), or that a
(Cal., 1898), 33 Pac. Rep. 311; Eakins mere private servant has performed
V. Eakins (Ky. , 1893), 20 S. W. Eep. his duty. Bigelow v. Metro. Ey. Co.,
285; Brown v. Selby, 3 Biss. 457; 48 Mo, App. 367. C/. Turner v. Lord,
Nat. Harrow Co. v. Hanby, 54 Fed. 93 Mo. 113.
Eep. 493 ; Francis v. Kirkpatrick 6 Gutzell v. Pennie, 95 Cal. 598 ;
Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 834; Saul v. Frame N. E. E. L. etc. Co. v. Farmington,
350 PRESUMPTIONS. [§ 231.
Despite the extreme liability of all human affairs to change,
some presumptions exist which are based upon the relative
permanency or continuity which is frequently observed to
exist in certain lines of human activity. So a personal con-
nection, relationship or state of affairs, or a person's existence
once shown in evidence, will be presumed to continue un-
changed as long as it is usual for a thing of its peculiar nat-
ure to endure, unless the contrary be affirmatively proved.^
If it be shown that a corporation,^ partnership,' agenc}'-, mar-
riage,'' an adulterous connection,'' or a similar relation existed,
it is presumed that it continued to exist until its discontinu-
ance is shown.^ An existing agency will be presumed to be
a general agency.'' A person shown to have resided in a place
' will be presumed to have continued to do so,^ and a presump-
tion of the continuance of a lawful seizin in one will obtain
until it is overthrown by proof of facts inconsistent there-
with.'
But the most important presumption based upon the con-
tinuity of human conditions is the presumption that all men
etc. Co.,84Me. 284; Gorder V. Platts- Van Epps v. Van Epps, 6 Barb,
mouth, etc. Co. (Neb., 1893), 54 N. 330.
W. Eep. 830. A recital in a deed ^i Greenl. Ev., § 43; Seaman v.
that it was executed under seal will Ward, 1 Hilt. 53, 55 ; Haltenhof v.
be presumed to be true though the Haltenhof, 44 111. App. 135 (desertion
seal, which had been afiSxed, has during divorce proceedings) ; Eames
wholly disappeared. Rensens v. Sta- v. Eames, 41 N. H. 177 ; Leport v.
pies, 53 Fed. Eep. 91 ; Macey V. Stark, Todd, 33 N. J. L. 134; Cooper v.
31 S. W. Rep. 1088 (Mo.. 1893). Dedrick, 23 Barb. 516; Smiths.
1 Scott V. "Wood, 81 Cal. 398 ; New- Smith, 4 Paige, 433.
man v. Greenville, 7 S. Rep. 403; 'Sharp v. Knox, 48 Mo. App. 169.
Breman Bank v. Branch, etc. Co., « Rexf ord v. Miller, 49 Vt. 319;
16 S. W. Eep. 309 ; Redding v. Good- Nixon v. Palmer, 10 Barb. 175, 178 ;
win, 44 Minn. 355 (presumption of Kilburn v. Bennett, 3 Met. (Mass.)
bankruptcy); Gernan v. Navigation 199.
Co., 66 Hun, 633; Parkhurst v. 9 HoUingsworth v. Walker, 13 S.
Ketoham, 6 Allen, 406; Satchel! v.. Rep. 6; Long v. Mast, 11 Pa. St.
Doram, 4 Ohio St. 543, holding that 189 ; Babcock v. Utter, 1 Abb. App.
a public highway shown to exist is 37; Stephens v. McCormick, 5 Bush,
presumed to continue. 181; Lind v. Lind (Minn., 1893), 54
2 People v. Man. Co., 9 Wend. 351. N. W. Rep. 934; Alabama Land Co.
3 Eames v. Eames, 41 N. H. 176. v. Kyle (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 43;
4 Gilman v. Sheets, 43 N. W. Rep, Balch v. Smith, 4 Wash. St. 497;
299. Elyton L. Co. v. McElrath, 53 Fed.
'Smith V. Smith, 4 Paige, 433; Rep. 763,
§ 231.J PEESUMPTIONS. 351
are of sane mind, competent to manage their own affairs,^ and
responsible for their criminal acts. If acts be proved suflB-
cient to establish a condition either of imbecility or lunacy as
existing at any particular time, it will be presumed that the
condition has continued.^
The question of the presumptions of sanity and insanity
becomes of the greatest importance in the trial of criminal
causes, and especially in the trial of those accused of homi-
cide where insanity is urged as a defense. This being so, it
is greatly to be regretted that the courts are not altogether
harmonious as respects the amount or quality- of the proof
that is required to overcome the prim.a faoie presumption of
sanity which is said to exist in the case of every man. The
modern tendency of the cases is to give the prisoner Avho
pleads insanity as a defense to crime every opportunity to
secure his acquittal on that plea if he can, b}'' the aid of the
results of modern scientific investigation into the domain of
mental diseases, prove that fact to the Jury. He need not
prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt, for if he but
succeed in raising a doubt in the minds of the jury on this
point, then it is for the state to convince them beyond a
reasonable doubt that he is sane upon all the evidence.' The
accused must prove, however, according to the majority of
the cases, that " he was laboring under such a defect of reason
from disease of the mind as not to know {i. e., as not to have
sufficient mental capacity to know) the nature and quality of
the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not
linow he was doing wrong." *
1 Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71, 83 ; rison v. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C. 586 ;
Delafield t. Parish, 25 N. Y. 9 ; Aikin Eeiter v. Miller, 86 N. Y. 507 ; Grouse
V. Weckerly, 19 Mich. 482 ; Day v. v. Holman, 19 Ind. 30 ; Lilly v. Wag-
Day, 2 Green Ch. 549; Cotton v. Ill- oner, 27 111. 395.
mer, 45 Ala. 878 ; Perkins v. Perkins, ^ gee post, Burden of Proof in
39 N. H. 163 ; Blackburn v. State, 23 Criminal Trials, § 249, and the cases
Ohio St. 146; Herbert v. Berrier, 81 there cited.
Ind. 1 ; Robinson v. Adams, 63 Me. * This is the rule laid down in Mc-
869 ; Tingley v. Cowgill, 48 Mo. 291 ; Naghten's Case in 1843, 10 CI. & F.
Williams v. Robinson, 42 Vt. 678. 300, and followed by many cases in
2 Halley v. Webster, 21 Me. 461 ; England and America. In that case
State V. Wilner, 40 Wis. 304; Town- the court said: "The jurors ought
send V. Townsend, 7 Gil), 10; Har- to be told in all cases that every man
352
PEESUMPTIONS.
[§ 231.
This rule has been followed by the majority of the cases in
America, and may now be considered to be the law as re-
gards the amount and quality of the mental derangement
which must be shown in a criminal trial to rebut the presump-
tion of sanity.^ Sometimes, however, the courts have de-
parted from this test of the capacij.y to know the nature and
moral character of the act and have laid down the broader
is presumed to bo sane and to pos-
sess a sufficient degree of reason to
be responsible for his crimes until
the contrary be proved to their
satisfaction, and that to establish a
•defense on the ground of insanity it
must be clearly proved that at the
time of the commitment of the act
the party accused -was laboring
under such a defect 'of reason from
■disease of the mind as not to know
the nature and quality of the act he
was doing, or if he did know it that
he did not know he was doing what
was wrong." Again, in Moett v.
People, 85 N. Y. 375, 380, the court,
by Earl, J., said: "The laws of God
and the land are the measure of
every man's act, and make it right
or wrong, and it is right or wrong
as it corresponds with these laws.
When it is said that a prisoner must
at the time of the alleged criminal
act have sufficient capacity to dis-
•tinguish between right and wrong
with respect to such act, it is im-
plied that he must have sufficient
capacity to know whether such act
is in violation of the law of God or
of the land or both. ' It ia not the
duty of the trial judge to present the
matter to the jury in every possible
phase and in every form of lan-
guage which the ingenuity of coun-
sel can devise."
1 Parsons v. State, 2 S. Rep, 854 ;
81 Ala, 577; State v. Hockett, 30
N. W. Rep. 742; 70 Iowa, 442; State
V. Pagels, 92 Mo. 300; 4 S. W. Rep.
■931 ; Leache v. State, 23 Tex. App.
279; State v. Mowry, 15 Pac. Rep.
283; 37 Kan. 369; Farris v. Com.
(Ky., 1890), 1 S. W. Rep. 739; Giebel
V. State, 28 Tex. App. 151 ; 13 S. "W.
Rep. 591 ; State v. Zoun (Oreg., 1893),
30 Pac. Rep. 517; Com. v. Gerade,
145 Pa. St. 289; 38 W. N. C. 361;
State V. Alexander, 30 S. C. 74;
State V. Harrison, 15 S. E. Rep. 983;
36 W. Va. 739 ; State v. Maier, 36
W. Va. 757; Dunn v. People, 109
111. 635; Hornish v. People (III,
1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 677; Maxwell
V. State, 89 Ala. 150; People v. Foy,
34 N. E. Eep. 396; 138 N. Y. 664;
Karney v. State (Miss., 1891), 8 S.
Rep. 393. For cases of homicide
in which this presumption of sanity
was removed, see Reg. v. Laytou, 4
Cox C. 0. 149-155; Roswell v. State,
63 Ala. 807; State v. Hoyt, 46 Conn.
330; State v. Martin (N. J.), 3 Cr. L.
Mag. 44 ; Com. v. Rogers, 48 Mass.
(7 Mete.) 500 ; Armstrong v. State,
30 Fla. 170; Boswell v. Com., 20
Gratt. (Va.) 860 ; State v. Starling, 6
Jones' (N. C.) L. 366 ; State v. Hur-
ley, 1 Houst. Cr. Cas. (Del.) 28;
King V. State, 9 Fla. 617; People v.
McDonell, 47 Cal. 134; State v.
Stark, 1 Strobh. (S. C.) L. 479; Peo-
ple V. Finley, 38 Mich. 483; Caset v.
State, 40 Ark. 511; Kriel v. Com., 5
Bush (Ky.), 363 ; Baldwin v. State,
12 Mo. 823; Loeffner v. State, 10
Ohio St. 599; Jamison v. People (111.,
1894), 34 N. E. Rep. 48; Com. v.
Lynch, 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 412; Mont-
gomery V. Com., 88 Ky. 509; Flana-
gan V. People, 52 N. Y. 467.
§ 232.] PEES0MPTIONS. 353
rule that though the defendant may have known or had ca-
pacity to know the difference between right and wrong in
the particular case, yet, if facts are shown from which the
jury may infer that he was acting under some uncontrollable
impulse or influence which prevented him from making a
choice between the right and wrong, the presumption of his
sanity is rebutted and it becomes the duty of the jury to ac-
quit the accused.'
The presumption of the continuance of a given condition
of mental derangement depends entirely upon the nature of
the mental, malady itself. Thus while in the case of congen-
ital mental infirmity as idiocy, or habitual or fixed insanity, it
may require very clear evidence to rebut the presumption, in
the case of a delirium which is the result of physical disease,
it is doubtful if it can be said that a legal presumption of con-
tinued insanity exists at all.^ There is no presumption of
law that once insane always so, but the circumstances of each
case should be considered to ascertain how far the same men-
tal condition may be presumed to exist at an earlier or later
period.'
§ 232. Presumptions as to juristliction. — It is a general
rule that a court of superior or general jurisdiction will be
presumed to have acted regularly and within its powers where
'This is the doctrine of moral in- 116 III. 555; 6 N. E. Rep. 165, in
sanity as distinguished from mere which the subject of emotional or
mental disease per se, or from hal- moral insanity is further considered,
luoinations or delusions constituting ^ Johnson v. Armstrong (Ala.,
mania. See 3 Law Quar. Rev. 339 ; 1893), 12 S. Rep. 73; Manley y.
Taylor v. Com., 109 Pa. St. 870; Staples (Vt., 1S93). 26 Atl. Rep. 630;
Flake v. State, 131 Ind. 433; People Prentice v. Bates, 93 Mich. 234.
V. Durfee, 62 Mich. 487; People v. 'Schouler on Wills, § 187, citing
Kerrigan, 14 Pac. Rep. 566; 73 Cal. Goble v. Grant, 3 Green Ch. 639; Cart-
222, rejecting the doctrine of moral wright v. Cartwright, 1 Phill. 100
insanity. See, also, generally, State Goodheart v. Ransley, 28 Wkly. L.
V. Reidel (Del., 1888), 14 Atl. Rep.' Bui. 237: Hix v. Whittemore. 4 Met
550; Williams v. State, 50 Ark. 511; 545; Halley v. Webster, 21 Me. 461
9 S. W. Rep. 5; Burgo v. State (Neb., Staples v. Wellington, 58 Me. 453
42 N. W. Rep. 701 ; People v. McMasters v. Blair, 29 Pa. St. 298
Barber, 15 N. Y. 475. Cf. State v. Taylor v. Cresswell, 45 Md. 423
Jones, 50 N. H. 369; Leache v. State, Townsend v. Townsend, 7 Gill, 10
22 Tex, Cr. App., p. 279; 3 S. W. Castor v. Davis (Ind., 1890), 20 N. E,
Rep. 539; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. Rep. 110.
577 ; 2 S. Rep. 854 ; Dacey v. People,
23
354
PEESUMPTIONS.
[§ 232.
the record is silent and until the contrary is shown;* and for
this reason, whenever the validity of its judgment is attacked
collaterally, it will be presumed, where the record of the judg-
ment is silent on these points, that both the subject-matter
and the parties were within its jurisdiction.^ If jurisdiction
has once been acquired it will be presumed to continue until
final judgment.' "When any fact or statement appears upon
the record its correctness will be presumed,* and all the nec-
essary steps which are requisite to give the court jurisdiction
will be presumed to have been taken in conformity there-
with, even where the minor details appertaining thereto are
not set forth in the record.^ Thus it will be presumed that
pleadings have been properly amended or filed where amend-
ment or filing was needed;^ that the rulings of the trial court
'State V. Trounce, 5 "Wash. St.
804; Ryder v. Roberts, 48 Mo. App.
133; Cape Girardeau v. Burrough,
118 Mo. 559; Galpin v. Page, 18
Wall. 350; Black v. Epperson, 40
Tex. 178; Nations v. Johnson, 24
How. (U. S.) 195; Slocum v. Prov.
St. etc. Co., 10 R. I. 112. By some of
the cases this presumption is based,
not on the superior power of the court
at common law, but upon the fact
that a court has a i-ecord on which
all its proceedings are inscribed.
Davis V. Hudson, 29 Minn. 35.
2 See g§ 152-155, ante; Pope v.
Harrison, 16 Lea (Tenn.), 82; Doe v.
Lindsey, 24 Ga. '225; Huntington v.
Charlotte, 15 Vt. 46; Taylor v. Brily
(Ind., 1892), 30 N. E. Rep. 369; Yaeger
V. Henry, 39 111. App. 21 ; Markel v.
Evans, 47 Ind. 826; Linton v. Allen,
154 Mass. 432; Emeric v. Alvaredo,
64 Cal. 529; Knox v. Bowersox, 6
Ohio Cir. Ct. 375; Carter v. State,
92 Fla. 553 ; United States v. Green,
6 Mackey, 563 ; People v. Kline, 83
Cal. 374; State v. Weaver, 101 N. C.
758.
SHousoh V. People, 66 111. 178;
Osborn v. Sutton, 108 Ind. 443.
<Kley V. Healy, 137 N. Y. 555;
Sickles V. Look, 93 Cal. 600; Mc-
Garvey v. Ford (N. M.), 37 Pac. Rep.
,415; Kent v. Insurance Co. (N. D.,
1893), 50 N. W. Rep. 85; Parish v.
Railroad Co., 38 Fla. 351; Scott v.
Iron Co. (Ky., 1892), 18 S. W. Rep.
1012; Traders' Bank v. Parker, 180
N. Y. 415; Louisville, etc. Co. v.
Orr, 10 S. Rep. 167; 94 Ala. 602;
Duncan v. State, 88 Ala. 31; Gam
V. Working (Ind., 1893), 31 N. E.
Rep. 821.
6 Gridley v. College, 137 N. Y. 537;
Rogers v. Burns, 27 Pa. St. 525; 3
Head, 353 ; Wright v. Douglass, 10
Barb. 97 ; Golden Gate Min. Co. v.
Yuba Co., 65 Cal. 187; Wetherill v.
Sullivan, 65 Pa. St. 105; Grignon's
Lessee v. Astor, 3 How. (U. S.) 319.
Where the party appears and defends
it will be presumed that he wag
legally served. Martin v. Mott, 12
Wheat. 19; Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass.
463;Broder v. Conklin (Cal., 1898),
33 Pac. Rep. 311.
6 Tipton V. Warner, 47 Kan. 606;
Miss. etc. Co. v. Smith (Tex., 1892),
19 S. W. Rep. 509; Dove v. Com-
monwealth, 83 Va. 301 ; Evansville,
etc. Co. V. Maddox(Ind., 1893), 34 N.
E. Rep. 511.
§ 232.]
PEESUMPTIONS.
355
are correct in the absence of exceptions thereto on the record,'
and that, the verdict was justified by the evidence if the record
is silent.'* But these presumptions are not conclusive.' These
presumptions are rebutted where the record shows that the
court did not obtain jurisdiction because of the non-appear-
ance, a failure to serve one of the parties, or for any other rea-
son.* Though in the case of inferior courts jurisdictional facts
must appear of record, where the}' do so appear the court will
be presumed to have properly acquired jurisdiction, and all
subsequent proceedings will be presumptively regular.'
The rules governing the presumptions of -the regularity of
1 Adams v. Main, 29 N. E. Rep. 792 ;
3 Ind. App. 232; Dunton v. Keel
(Ala., 1893), 10 S. Rep. 333; Bi-own
V. Lehigh, etc. Co., 40 111. App. 603;
Kelly V. Kelley, 80 Wis. 490; Klink
V. People, 16 Colo. 467 ; Crawford v.
Neal, 144 U. S. 585 ; People v. Dur-
fee, 62 Mich. 487 ; Pool v. Gramling,
88 Ga. 653; Richardson v. Eureka,
96 Cal. 443 ; Wilson v. Nelson, 40 III.
App. 209. See § 367 et seq.
2 Ohio V. Sweeney, 43 La. Ann.
1073; Atchison, etc. Co. v. Howard,
C. C. A. 229 ; Daly v. Wise, 132 N. Y.
306.
3 The correct view is not that the
law presumes a record is always cor-
rect, but if on its face it is complete
and regular, the party producing it
is not compelled to prove it until its
falsity is shown. Whkrt. on Ev.,
§ 1302.
♦Gray v. Hawes, 8 Cal. 563; Mur-
ray V. Murray, 6 Greg. 17; Baker v.
Chapline, 12 Iowa, 204; Kilgour v.
Gockley, 88 III. 109. The correctness
of a return of personal service may
be contradicted by parol. Zepp v.
Hager, 70 III. 233.
5Lemert v. Shafer (Ind., 1893), 31
N. E. Rep. 1138; Church v. Cross-
man, 49 Iowa, 444; Brown v. Wood,
17 Mass. 68; Smith v. Engle, 44 Iowa,
365; Reeves v. Townsend, 2 Zab.
(N. j;) 39. " Presumptions as to the
judgments of superior courts only
arise with respect to jurisdictional
facts concerning which the record is
silent. Presumptions are only in-
dulged to supply the absence of e^-
dence or averments respecting the
facts presumed. They have no place
for consideration when the evidence
is disclosed or the averment is made.
When, therefore, the record states
the evidence or makes an averment
with reference to a jurisdictional
fact, it will be understood to speak
the truth on that point; and it will
not be presumed that there was other
or different evidence or that the fact
was otherwise than as averred. Were
this not so it would never be pos-
sible to attack collaterally the judg-
ment of a superior court, although
a want of jurisdiction might be ap-
parent upon its face. The answer
to the attack would always be that
notwithstanding the evidence or the
averment the necessary facts to sup-
port the judgment are presumed.
These presumptions" are also limited
to jurisdiction over persons within
the territorial limits of the courts,
who can be reached by their process,
and also to proceedings which are in
accordance with the course of the
common law." Bank of United
States V. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 69,
70.
356 PEESUMPTIONS. [§ 233.
judicial proceedings as above stated are subject to some limit-
ations as respects superior courts exercising special statutory
powers. "Where the statutory or extraordinary judicial pow-
ers are to be exercised according to the usual common-law or
chancery proceedings, the dJoo\e prima facie presumptions of
jurisdiction and of the conclusiveness of the judgment will ob-
tain. When, however, judicial powers are to be exercised
summarily or in a special manner not in conformity with the
common law, no presumptions will be created, and the facts
necessary to give jurisdiction must be shown by the record
before a judgment or decree rendered in such statutory pro-
ceedings can be sustained.'
A person to whom a matter is submitted for arbitration
must strictly confine himself in making his award within the
limits of the submission, and if he shall exceed the authority
delegated to him the award will be void. A presumption of
law alwaj's exists that he has not exceeded his authority as
arbitrator, and the burden of proof is upon the person seeking
to set aside the award.^
§ 233. Presumptions of life, death and survivorship. —
A man is presumed to be alive until his death is shown.' If
a man is absent and is not heard from for seven years by
those who would naturally have heard from hira if he were
alive, he will be presumed to be dead.* A failure to hear
1 Haywood v. Collins, 60 III. 338; Firman, 29 111. 90 ; Hodges v. Hodges,
State V. Trounce. ("Wash., 1893), 33 9 Mass. 330: Lamphire v. Cowan, 39
Pac. Rep. 750 ; Harvey v. Tyler, 3 Vt. 430 ; Sheffield v. Clark, 73 Ga. 92.
Wall. (U. S.) 338; Umbarger v. 3 in re Hall, 1 Wall. Jr. (U. S.) 85 ;
Chaboya, 49. Cal. 535; Gray V. Steam- Montgomery v. Beavans, 1 Sawy.
boat, 6 Wis. 59; Prentiss v. Parks, (U. S.) 660; Watson v. Tyndall, 34
65 Me 559; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. Ga. 494; Whitesides' Appeal, 33 Pa.
350; Johnson v. Kettler, 84 111. 315 ; St. 114; Bradley v. Bradley, 4 Wheat.
Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119; 173; Eagle v. Emmett, 4 Brad. Sun
Clark V. Thompson, 47 III. 25; Wind- (N. Y.) 117; Stinchfield v. Emerson,
sor V. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 374 ; Kansas, 53 Me. 465 ; Brown v. Jewett, 18
etc. Go. V. Campbell, 63 Mo. 585; N. H. 230; Com. v. Thompson, 11
Eaton V. Badger, 33 N. H. 338. Allpn (Mass.), 25 ; Grey v. McDaniel,
' Hayes v. FoskoU, 81 , Me. 118 ; 6 Bush (Ky.), 480.
Ebert V. Ebert, 5 Md. 853^ Burns V. Un re Miller, 9 N. Y. S. 639
Hendrix, 54 Ala. 78; Byers v. Van Mathews v. Simmons, 49 Ark, 468
Deusen, 5 Wend. 268 ; Richardson V. French v. McQinniss, 69 Tex. 129
Huggins, 23 N. H. 106; Blair v. Stockbriclge v. Stockbridge, 145
Wallace, 21 Cal. 317; Hubbard v. Mass, 517; Badeau v. McKenny, 7
§ 233.}
PEESUMPTIONS.
357
from a person who is absent but who had a fixed abode is not
enough to raise this presumption unless inquiry had been
made for him in the place where he was known to be located.
In some cases he will be presumed to have died at the end of
the seven-year perio'd,' though as a general rule the date of
his death should be left to the jury to decide on all the cir-
cumstances.^ If the absence is accompanied by other facts,
a person's death may be presumed from absence lasting a
much shorter period. Thus, where a person who is absent
was physically infirm from old age,' or if he had attempted
suicide,* or if he had sailed in a ship which was long overdue,*
and particularly if, the vessel not having been spoken, the
insurance had been paid,* his death would be presumed after
a shorter period.'
So far as any presumption that a person left issue is con-
Maokey, 268 ; Crawford v. Elliott, 1
Houst. (Del.) 467; In re Spencely
(1892), Prob. 142; Hoyt v. Newbold,
45 N. J. L. 219; Tilly v. Tilly, 2
Bland Uh. (Md.) 444; Adams v.
Jones, 39 Ga. 508 ; Spears v. Burton,
31 Miss. 547; N. C. University v.
Harrison, 90 N. C. 385 ; Hancock v.
Am. L. I. Co., 62 Mo. 26; Thomas
v., Thomas, 16 Neb. 555 ; Winship v.
O'Conner, 43 N. H. 341 ; Holmes v.
Johnson, 42 Pa. St. 149 ; Wambaugh
V. Schenck, 1 Penn. (N. J.) 229;
Stinch field v. Emerson, 52 Me. 465 ;
Whitney v. Nicoll, 46 111. 330.
' Smith V. Knowlton, 11 N. H. 191 ;
Montgomery v. Bevans, 1 Sawy. C.
C. 053; Forsuith v. State, 21 N. H.
424; Clarke v. Canfield, 2 McCart.
(N, J.) 119; Davie V. Briggs, 7 Otto,
028; Eagle v. Emmett, 4 Bradf.
(N. y.) 117; Rockland v. Morrill, 71
Me. 455 ; Young v. Heffner, 36 Ohio
St. 332; Packet v. State, 1 Sneed
(Tenn.), 355; Hancock v. Insurance
Co., 63 Mo. 26.
■'Johnson v. Merthen, 80 Me. 115;
Snith V. Knowlton, 11 N. H. 191;
Burr V. Sim, 4 Whart. 150; Biadjey
V. Bradley, 4 id. 173; Whiteley v. In-
surance Co., 73 Wis. 170; 39 N. W.
Rep. 309 ; Henderson v. Benar (Ky. ,
1890), 11 S. W. Ptep. 809; In re To-
bin, 4 N. Y. S. 59 • Waite v. Coaracy,
45 Minn. 159 ; Cambreling v. Purton,
58 Hun, 610; 125 N. Y. 610; Davie
V. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628 ; Hancock v.
Insurance Co., 63 Mo. 26.
3 In re Bucknam's Will, 5 N. Y. S.
565. In this case the party was ab-
sent and unheard from a few months
only.
<In re Ketchum, 5 N. Y. S. 566.
5 Johnson v. Merithew, 80 Me. 115;
Stewart's Will, 1 Con. Sur. 83.
6 Sprigg V. Moale, 28 Md. 497.
'Cox V. Ellsworth, 36 N. W. Rep.
(Neb.) 460; Johnson v. Johnson, 114
111. 611; Lancaster v. Wash. I. Co.,
62 Mo. 121; Stouvenal v. Stephens,
2 Daly (N. Y.), 319; Sheldon v. Fer-
ris, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 124; Gerry v.
Post, 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 118; State
v. Moore, 11 Ired. L. (N. C.) 160;
Tisdale v. Insurance Co., 36 Iowa,
170; Boyd v. N. E. Ins. Co., '3 La.
Ann. 848; Davie v. Briggs, 7 Otto,
628; Loring v. Steineman, 1 Mete.
(Mass.) 204.
358 PEESUMPTIONS. [§ 233.
cerned, it has been held that when he was unmarried when last
heard from no presumption will arise that upon his death he
left any surviving issue,' widow ^ or heirs.' In some of the states
statutory provisions exist by which the presumption of death
after seven years' absence from the state is made conclusive
if there is no proof that the absentee is alive. Such statutes
do not exclude presumption of death in a case where it is un-
known whether the person has left the state, and in such cases
the common-law presumption applies.* The presumption of
deatla arising from absence from one's domicile may be rebut-
ted by evidence of a general report that the missing person is
alive and is domiciled at some foreign place,' and a fortiori
by direct proof that he is alive.^ On the other hand, a per-
son's death cannot be proved by evidence of a general report
that he is dead, prevalent in the neighborhood where he was
last known to reside, such evidence being hearsaj' and incom-
petent.''
The question of a presumption of survivorship, in cases in-
volving the succession of estates, has been much discussed. In
an early case in which a father, having bequeathed legacies
to his children, perished with one of the latter in a shipwreck,
the court denied that any presumption for or against survivor-
ship could be entertained, and directed the issue to be sub-
mitted to a jury.^ The English ecclesiastical court adopted
the presumption that both parties died simultaneously, and
that consequently there was no presumption of survivorship.'
iSprigg V. Moale, 28 Md. 497 ; Chap- < Louisville v. Board, 83 Ky. 319.
maa v. Kimball, 84 M^. 389; In re 5 Dowd v. Watson, 105 N. C. 476.
Taylor, 66 Hun, 626; In re Webb, « piynn v. Coffee, 12 Allen (Maas.),
I, R. 5 Eq. 235; MuUaly v. Walsh, 133. Cf: Roderigues v. Bank, 63 N.
I. R. 6 C. L. 314; Doe v. Griffin, 15 Y. 460; Wentworth v. Wentworth,
East, 893; In re Hanby, 25 W. R. 71 Me. 72; Bailey v. Bailey, 36 Mich.
487. 185 ; Norris v. Edwards, 90 N. C. 882.
2 In re Westbrooke, W. N. 1873, 7 Johnson v. Johnson, 114 111. 611;
p. 167; Rowe v. Hasland, 1 W. Bl. Scott v. Ratcliffe, 5 Pet. 81; State v.
404. Wright, 70 Iowa, 153; id. 759; Mil-
3 Bank v. Board, 5 S. W. Rep. 735, free v. State, 13 Tex. App. 340.
739, 743; Ferry v. Sampson, 112 N. 8 i Greenl. on Ev., g 30; Mason v.
Y. 415. But a presumption ot issue Mason, 1 Mer. 308.
arises where the absentee was mar- 9 Wright v. Samuda, 3 Phil. 266,
ried when last heard from. Faulk- 277 ; Taylor v. Diplock, 3 id. 261, 278,
ner V. Williman (K!y.), 16 S. W. Rep. 280; Selwyn's Case, 3 Hagg. 748,
353; Harvey v. Thornton, 14 III. 217. cited in 1 Greenl. on Ev., g 40.
§ 234.] PEESUMPTIONS. 359
The modern rule seems well settled that, in the absence of
statutory provision regulating this matter/ where several per-
sons perish in the same calamity, no presumption exists from
age or sex that any of them survived the others or that all
died at the same moment;^ but that in anj^ event the ques-
tion of survivorship is to be decided, like any other question
of fact, upon all the circumstances of the case; as, for exam-
ple, the character of the disaster and the age, physical condi-
tion, SOX and manner of death of those who perished ; ' the
supposed superior strength (from sex or age) being a circum-
stance proper to be taken into consideration, but not enough
alone to create any presumption. The burden of proof of
establishing survivorship is said to be on him who claims
through a survivorship.''
§ 234. Legitimacy — Innocence — Malice. — InEngland the
issue of husband and wife living together M'as conclusively
presumed to be legitimate, a;id this was true though the wife
had been shown to be unfaithful;^ though where the parties
did not cohabit at the date of the conception the presumption
was rebuttable.' It may now bo laid down as a general rule
that the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during the
existence of a marriage is not conclusive,' even where there
is a valid marriage and where the parties continue to cohabit.^
1 See Civil Code of Louisiana, ai'ts. < See, also, Russell v. Hallett, 23
930-933; California Code C. P., Kan. 276; Coye v. Leach, 8 Mete.
§ 1963; HoUister v. Cordero, 76 Cal. (Mass.) 371; Smith v. Croom, 7 Fla.
649; 18 Pac. Rep. 855. 144; Newell v. Nichols, 13 Hun (N.
2 In re Alston (1892), Prob. 143; Y.), 644 ; 75 N. Y. 78.
Underwood v. Wing, 19 Beav. 459; ^ gt. George v. St. Margaret, 1 Salk.
4 De G., M. & G. 633, 657; Wing v. 123; Banbury Peerage Case, 1 Sim.
Angrave, 8 H. L. Cas. 183, 198 ; John- & Stu. 153.
son V. Merrithew, 80 Me. Ill ; 13 Atl. e Morris v. Davis, 5 C. & Fin. 163.
Rep. 183; Kans. etc. Co. v. Miller, 'Van Aernam v. Van Aernam, 1
2 Colo. Ter. 443; Stinde v. Ridg- Barb. Ch. 375; Cross v. Cross, 3
way, 55 How. Pr. 801 ; Cowman Paige Ch. 139.
V. Rogers, 73 Md. 403; Stinde v. « Bullock v. Knox (Ala., 1893). 10
Goodrich, 3 Redf. Sur. 87; Robinson S. Rep. 339; Cross v. Cross, 3 Paise,
V. Gallier, 3 Wood C. C. 178; Corye 139; Sullivan v. Kellj', 3 Allen
V. Leach, 8 Met. 371 ; In re Ridgway, (Mass.), 148; Dean v. State, 29 Ind.
4 Redf. 336 ; Fuller v. Linzee, 185 483 ; Pittsford v. Chittenden, 58 Vt.
Mass. 468. 51; Strode v. MacGowan, 2 B'jsli
'InreEhle's Will, 41 N. W. Rep. (Ky.), 621; Herring v. Goodson, 43
637 ; 73 Wis. 445. Miss, 893; Canjolle v. Ferrle, 28
360
PRESUMPTIONS.
[§ 234.
A fortiori if the fact of non-access, caused by the prolonged
absence of the husband from the country, be established, the
presumption of legitimacy is supplanted by an irresistible con-
clusion that a child born to the wife is illegitimate.^ So,
while the marriage may legitimatize a child, there is no pre-
sumption that a man who marries the mother of a bastard is
its father.^ But a marriage once proved, the law raises a
strong presumption that it is a legal one, which can only be
rebutted by the clearest proof.'
The rule that every one is presumed to be innocent * until
his guilt is shown is based on the fact that men generally observe
the rules of the criminal law and upon the impossibility of
obtaining and the injustice of requiring affirmative proof that
the accused has done so. This presumption, which is always
rebuttable,' but which, if it is not rebutted, accompanies the
accused through the trial, is merely stating in a concise form
the well-recognized rule of law that any party, whether it be
the state, or an individual seeliing redress for a civil injur}'-,
Barb. 177; State v. Pettaway, 3
Hawks (S. C), 533 ; Tate v. Penne, 7
Mart. (La.) 548; Dean v. State, 29
In J. 4S3.
' Pittsford V. Chittenden, 58 Vt. 51 ;
Cross V. Cross, 3 Paige, 139; In re
Say and Sele, 1 H. L. Cas. 507. Sex-
ual intercourse is presumed from ac-
cess (Head v. Head, 1 Sim. &Stu. 150);
and if access is shown no evidence is
admissible to rebut the presumption
of intercourse except direct evidence
that it did not take place. If the
husband had access, evidence of an
adulterous intercourse alone, it has
been held, is not relevant to prove
Illegitimacy in view of the strong
presumption of legitimacy. Abb.,
Trial Evidence, p. 89.
2 McDonald's Appeal, 30 W. N. C.
176.
s Boulden v. Mclntire, 119 Ind.
574; Coal R. C. Co. v. Jones, 127
111. 379; State v. Brecht, 41 Minn. 50.
<Case V. Case, 17 Cal. 593; Mc-
Ewen V. Portland, 1 Oreg. 300 ; Gal-
laher v. State, 28 Tex. App. 247;
Edwards v. State, 21 Ark. 513;
Johnson v. State (Tex., 1893), 20 S.
W. Rep. 368 ; People v. Graney, 91
Mich. 646.
5 Van Peet v. McGraw, 4 N. Y.
110 ; United States v. Heath, 20 D. C.
372; People v. Pal lister, 38 N. Y.
601 ; Gardner v. State (N. J., 1893),
26 Atl. Rep. 30; Woodruff v. State
(Fla., 1893), 12 S. Rep. 653; Reid v.
State, 50 Ga. 556; Barcus v. State,
49 Miss. 17: McDaniell v. State, 76
Ala. 1 ; People v. Bush, 71 Cal. 603;
Dixon v. State, 13 Fla. 636 ; Murphy
V. People, 37 111. 447 ; State v. Vin-
cent, 24 Iowa, 570 ; State v. Knight,
43 Me. 11 ; Com. v. Webster, 59 Mass.
(5 Cush.) 295; State v. Alexander, 66
Mo. 148; State v. Byers, 100 N. C.
512; Perry v. State, 44 Tex. 473;
Hill's Case, 2 Gratt. (Va.) 594; Peo-
ple V. Coughlin (Mich.), 33 N. W.
Rep. 905; Goodal v. State, 1 Grog.
333.
§ 234.] PEESUMPTIONS. 361
who seeks the aid of a court of law, has the burden of proof
to show affirmatively the existence or non-existence of the
facts he affirms or denies. Thus, in the ease of a trial for
the crime of seduction, the plaintiff's previous chastity, being
material, must be proved.* The character and strength of the
presumption of innocence demand that, even where wrong-
doing can be proved by negative evidence alone, such proof
must be given by the party alleging the wrong, contrary to
the general rule, by which the burden of proof is cast on the
one maintaining the affirmative.^
So where both the presumption of the continuance of life
and the presumption of innocence are involved, the latter will
prevail^and the existence of the person will have to be shown.'
Every man possessed of a sound mind is presumed to intend
and contemplate the necessary and even the probable natural
consequences of his deliberate acts.* The presumption may
in some cases be conclusive, as where the consequences neces-
sarily follow the act. This occurs, for example, where a per-
son deliberately points and fires a pistol at a vital part of
another person's body. Here, if the latter is killed, the former
cannot be heard to say that he did not intend to kill him.
The intention to kill is conclusively presumed. If the conse-
quences do not naturally follow the act, that is if they only
probably follow it, the presumption is rebuttable.' A person
who knowingly and voluntarily signs an instrument is prima
facie presumed to have read it or to have otherwise informed
himself as to its contents.* But this presumption is always
rebuttable by proving that the party was deceived through
1 Com. V. Whitaker, 131 Mass. 234; must be proven guilty beyond a rea-
State V. Wells, 48 Iowa, 671. sonable doubt is not enough alone,
2 Quin V. State, 46 Ind. 459 ; Piano for the maxim of law regarding rea-
Co. V. Root (N. D., 1893), 54 N. W. sonable doubt is by no means syn-
Rep. 924; Cook v. Tavener, 41 111. onymous ivith the proposition that a
App. 643. man is presumed innocent until his
3 Com. V. McGrath, 140 Mass. 296 ; guilt is shown. People v. Van
Spears v. Burton, 31 Miss. 547; Houter, 38 Hun, 168; Barker v.
Klein v. Landman, 29 Mo. 359; State, 48 Ind. 163,
Sharp V. Johnson, 23 Ark. 75. The ^Eeynolds v. United States, 98
accused is entitled to a separate and U. S. 167.
distinct instruction that his inno- 5 in re Bringer, 7 Blatch. 268.
cenoe is pi-esumed until his guilt is * Harris v. Story, 3 E. D. Smith,
proved. An instruction that he — .
362 PBESUMPTIONS. [§ 234.
his own ignorance or the fraud of others, or that he signed
the document by mistake or under duress.^
In the case of the deliberate use of a deadly weapon caus-
ing death, when it is shown that the killing was done by the
defendant and no other evidence is offered on either side,
malice will be presumed, and the act will constitute murder.^
If, as is usually the case, other circumstances are presented in
the evidence in connection with the killing, which is admitted
or proved and which is not claimed to be excusable, then it is
for the jury to say, upon all the evidence, whether malice was
present or not, and this question they must decide upon all the
facts in the case.* In other words, a rebuttable presumption of
malice arises as soon as the homicide is proved. This may be-
come a conclusive presumption binding on the jury in case no
defense is made. On the other hand, the presumption may be
rebutted by other evidence t)f the state, while if such is not
the case the accused may offer evidence to show that he did
the killing in self-defense or while insane and thus remove the
presumption of malice.
As regards minor crimes of which a criminal or malicious
1 Lake v. Eanney, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) Stote, 58 Miss. 778; State v. Swayze,
50, 68. 30 La. Ann. 1323 ; State v. Smith, 77
2 Com. V. Hawkins, 3 Gray, 463; N. C. 488; State v. Knight, 43 Me.
Lewis V. State (Ga., 1893), 15 S. E. 12; Stokes v. People, 53 InT. Y. 164;
Rep. 697; Fritch v. State (Ga., 1893), Thomas v. People, 67 id. 218. Cf.
16 S. E. Rep. 103. Implied malice, Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142. "When-
i. e., a presumption of malice, exists ever a homicide is shown to liave
where mischief is intentionally done been committed without lawful au-
without just cause or excuse. Darry thority and with deliberate intent,
T. People, 10 N. Y. 138. it is sufBciently proved to have been
3 State v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308; with malice aforethought. It is not
State V. Ariel (S. C., 1893), 16 S. E. necessary to prove that any special
Rep. 779; Young v. State (Ala., or express hatred or malice was en-
1893), 10 S. Rep. 913; Hart v. State, tertained by the accused toward the
17 S. W. Rep. 421; 21 Tex. App. 163; deceased. It is sufficient to prove
iHornsby v. State (Ala., 1892), 10 S. that the act was done with deliber-
Rep. 522; State v. Carver (Oreg., ate intent as distinct from an act
1892), 30 Pac. Rep. 315; People v. done under the sudden impulse of
Knapp, 71 Cal. 1 ; People v. Tidwell, passion in the heat of blood and
4 Utah, 506; Powell v. State, 28 Tex. without previous malice." United
App. 393; People v. Odell, 46 N. W. States v. Guiteau, 10 Fed. Rep. 163,
Rep. 601 ; 1 Dak. 197 ; State v. Whit- 165.
son, 111 N. 0. 695; Hawthorne v.
§ 234.] PEE6ITMPTI0NS. 363
motive or intent is a constituent part, no presumption of mal-
ice is created where no statutory provision exists maliing the
act criminal per se. If a malicious intent or motive is neces-
sary it will have to be proved by the party on whom is cast
the burden of proving the essential elements of the transac-
tion in litigation. But this rule does not of course require
direct evidence of malice, though such evidence may often be
easy to procure in the shape of the express declarations of the
accused. It is usually sufficient if facts arc shown which
evince a malevolent, or spiteful, or recliless disposition,' and
from these facts the jury may decide as a presumption or in-
ference of fact that malice existed in the case.^
1 " Tlius in malicious prosecutions is wilful, wanton or reckless, or
the term is quite comprehensive and against the prosecutor's senseot duty
includes many phases of wrong mo- and right, or for ends he knows or is
tive and conduct. There may be ill- bound to know are wrong and
will, malevolence, spite, a spirit of against the dictates of public policy,
revenge or a purpose to injure with- it is malicious," Hamilton v. Smith,
out cause, but it is not necessary 30 Mich. 329,
there should be. If the prosecution
CHAPTEE XYIII.
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
236. Judicial notice.
337. Matter of common knowl-
edge.
238. Historical facts.
239. Ueograpliical facts.
240. Political facts — Elections.
241. Scientific facts.
§ 242. Common and statutory law —
Municipal ordinances and
local and foreign laws.
243. Foreign nations, seals and
acts.
244. Terms of court, records, rules
of practice and judicial pro-
ceedings.
§ 236. Judicial notice. — The doctrine of judicial notice,
*. e., the knowledge which a court or judge will take officially
of the truth of certain classes of facts without requiring
proof thereof to be offered, is based upon the necessity for a
speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. The time
of the courts should not be taken up, nor should the parties to
litigation be put to needless expense in taking evidence to
prove facts which are merely collateral to the point in issue
and which are within the knowledge of all persons of average
education and intelligence. Of such facts the courts will take
judicial notice. The primary effect of judicial notice is to
dispense with the proof of some fact. To the extent that this
is done the power of the jury as triers of fact is limited and
circumscribed, and the power of the court to decide upon the
existence of a fact as a matter of law, and by its decision to
bind the jury, is correspondingly enlarged. To permit the
court to take judicial notice of obvious or familiar facts is
equivalent to enunciating a rule of law that such facts are to
be considered by the jury as conclusively proved and as obli-
gatory on them. This view of the matter is confirmed by the
consistent practice of the courts in refusing not only to per-
mit the introduction of evidence to prove the fact, but of evi-
dence to disprove its truth as well.
But the amount of information which is required to consti-
t'lte a man of average or ordinarj' education and intelligence
6
§ 237.]
JUDIQIAL NOTICE.
365
will vary greatly. Many facts may be notorious in one sec-
tion of a large country whicli would not be known to well-
informed persons in another. The general rules, therefore, in
regard to the facts which the courts will notice judicially are
sometimes modified by the circumstances of the particular
case to which it is sought to apply them.^
§ 237. Matter of common knowledge. — The courts will
take , judicial notice of the meaning of English words and
phrases,^ abbreviations,^ and of legal expressions in common
use.* So, courts will take judicial notice of the recurrence of
public holidays;' of the natural and artificial subdivisions of
time ; " of the coincidence of the days of the month and week ; '
of the incidents of railroad travel; 'of the use of the telephone
as a means of communication;' of billiard tables for gaming
purposes ; '" of the nature and value of the circulating medium
'"Courts should exercise this
power with caution ; care must be
taken that tlie requisite notoriety
Exists, and every reasonable doubt
should be promptly resolved in the
negative.'' Svvayne, J., in Browne v.
Piper, 91 U. S. 37.
2Lohman v. State, 81 Ind. 151;
Power V. Boudle (N. D., 1893), 54 N.
W. Rep. 404; Baily v. Kalamazoo P.
Co., 40 Mich. 251 ; Elrod v. Alexanda,
4 H^isk. 343 (meaning of " contra-
liand ") ; Barker v. State, 12 Tex. 273 ;
FuUenvrider v. FuUenwider, 53 Mo.
439; Hill V. State, 43 111.177; State
V. Hambleton, 23 Mo. 453; Com. v.
Kneeland, 30 Pick. (Mass.) 339.
' Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 ; Mose-
ley V. Martin, 37 Ala. 316 ; Wasson
V. Bank, 107 Ind. 206; Weaver v.
McElbrenan, 13 Mo. 89 ; Stephen v.
State, 11 Ga. 225; United States vi
Keefer, 59 Ind. 863 ("C. O. D.").
Contra, Johnston v. Roberts, 31 Md.
476 (abbreviations used by printers
and newspaper publishers) ; Ellis v.
Park, 8 Tex. 305 ; Accola v. Railroad
Co., 70 Iowa, 185 ; Hulbert v. Carver,
37 Barb. 62 ; CoIIender v. Diusniore,
55 N. y. 200; Russell v. Martin, 15
Tex. 238; McNichols v. Pacific Ex.
Co. , 1 3 Mo. App. 401. See ante, g 2 1 8.
^Eureka Vinegar Co. v. Gazette, 35
Fed, Rep. 570; Com. v. Kneeland,
20 Pick. 239; Hoare v. Silverlock, 12
Jur. 695 ; Lenahan v. People, 5 T. &
C. 265 ; South, etc. Co. v. Jeffries,
40 Mo. App. 360 ; Slingman v. Fiedler,
3 Mo. App. 577; Ward v. State, 22
Ala. 16 ; Sterne v. State, 30 Ala. 43.
5 Mechanics' Bank v. Gibson, 7
Wend. 460 ; Rice v. Mead, 33 How.
Pr. 440.
^Upinton v, Carrington, 69 Hun,
330.
7 Swales V. Grubb, 126 Ind. 106;
Brennan v. Voght (Ala., 1893), 11 S.
Rep. 893; Wilson v. Von Leer, 137
Pa. St. 371; Banks v. Kingsley, 84
Me. Ill ; Ecker v. Bank, 64 Md. 293;
Alman v. Owens, 31 Ala. 167 ; Phila.
R. Co. V. Lehman, 56 Md. 209 ; Mc-
intosh y. Lee, 57 Iowa, 356.
8 Downey v. Hendrie, 46 Mich.
498.
'Globe Printing Co. v. Stable, 33
Mo. App. 451.
i« atate V. Price, 12 Gill & J. 260.
366
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
[§.237,
irrespective of its legal-tender character;' of legal weights
and measures;^ and that a litigant is an alien enemy. ^ But
the value of foreign currency unless fixed by act of congress,'
of a particular commodity,' or of a person's services;^ the
rates of exchange between cities;' that "policy" is a game
of chance;^ local rules for the measurement of grain;' the
habitual use '" and location of city streets and plats," and other
similar matters of limited and local notoriety, must be affirma-
tively shown.'^
It has been held that though "courts will take judicial no-
tice of the natural expectation of life, as it is shown by mor-
tality tables," they .will not notice the present value of a life
insurance policy which is ascertainable only after an intricate
computation and the consideration of extrinsic circumstances."
Facts of natural and uniform recurrence, such as the return
of the seasons," the planting,'^ growth, condition " and matu-
iLampton V. Haggard, 3 Mon. 146;
Gad}' V. State. 83 Ala. 51 ; State v.
Grant, 55 Ala. 201 (coin); Bank v.
Meagher, 33 Ala. 623; Perritt, v.
Couch, 5 Bush, 201 (value of United
.States treasury notes).
2 Pecks V. Simis, 32 N. E. Rep. 313.
^Ince V. Beekman, 16 La. Ann.
353. The federal courts will take
notice of the organization and ex-
istence of national banks. United
States V. Williams, 4 Biss. 303.
^Kermott v. Ayer, 11 Mich. 181.
5 Cook V. Decker, 63 Mo. 338.
6 Pearson v. Darrington, 33 Ala.
327.
7 Lowe V. Bliss, 34 111. 168.
8 State V. Seiner, 17 Mo. App; 39.
9 South, etc. Co. V. Wood, 74 -Ala.
449. ,
1" Cleveland v. Newsom, 45 Mich.
63.
11 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Frana, 13
III. App. 91 ; Allen v. Scharring-
hausen, 8 Mo. App. 339 ; Cicotte v.
Cruciaux, 53 Mich. 237.
12 Longes v. Kennedy, 2 Bibb(Ky.),
607 (local custom) ; Russell v, Hoyt,
4 Mont. 412; Bell v. State, 1 Tex.
Agp. 81 (location of hotels) ; Tison v.
Smith, 8 Tex. 147 ; Wilcox v. Jack-
son, 109 III. 261 ; Perkins v. Rogers,
35 Ind. 124 ; St Louis, etc. Co. v. In-
surance Co., 33 Mo. App. 348 ; Rich-
ards V. Knight (Iowa, 1893), 43 N. W.
Rep. 584 (maturity of crops) ; Endere
V. McDonald (Ind., 1893), 31 N. E.
Rep. 1056; Chicago, etc. Co. v.
Champion, 33 id. 874; Bradford v.
Floyd, 80 Mo. 307.
isKans. etc. Co. v. Phillips (Ala.,
1893), 13 S. Rep. 65 ; Abell v. Pa. M.
Ins. Co., 18 W. Va. 400 ; Gordon v.
Tweedy, 74 Ala. 332.
14 Price V. Conn. M. L. Ins. Co., 48
Mo. App. 381.
15 Floyd V. Ricks, 14 Ark. 386, 393;
58 Am. Dec. 374; Raridan v. Rail-
road, 69 Iowa, 527 ; Patterson v. Mc-
Causland, 8 Bland (Md.), 69; Tom-
linson v. Greenfield, 31 Ark. 557;
Hunter v. New York; O. & W. R R.
Co., 116 N. Y. 633.
16 Wetzel V. Kelly, 83 Ala. 440;
Loeb V. Richardson, 74 Ala. 311.
" Robs v. Boswell, 60 Ind. 235.
§ 238.] JUDICIAL NOTICE. 367
rity of crops,^ and other natural phenomena which are noto-
rious and with which the majority of fairly well educated
persons are presumed to be conversant, need not be proved.
§238. Historical facts. — Important facts of history of
general and public notoriety which have exerted an influence
on the development of affairs affecting either the welfare of
the whole people or reacting upon the forms of the constitu-
tion and government will be noticed judicially,^ though it has
been held advisable, if not actuall}'' necessary, to call the
court's attention to the facts involved.^ Thus, iii America,
the courts will not require proof that at a given period the
nation was engaged in foreign* or civil ^ war, or that the latter
was widespread and involved particular states or sections.*
So, too, it has been held that the abolition of slavery,'' or the
nature ' or extinguishment of Indian titles, need not be shown.'
As a part of the sum of historical knowledge in the posses-
sion of the court, notice will be taken that during and after
the civil war the operation of the civil law was suspended ; '"
that an order of a military commander was law;^i that gold
was not m circulation, but that in all parts of the country a
paper currency was in nse,'^ with reference to which contracts
were made, and whose value was greatly depreciated. ''
1 Garth v. Caldwell, 72 Mo. 633; 5 Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124;
Dixon V. Niccolls, 39 111. 378; Tom- Brooke v. Filer, 35 Ind. 403; Wor-
linson v. Greenfreed, 31 Ark. 557; cester v. Cheney, 94 III. 430; S wen-
Gordon V. Tweedy, 74 Ala. 333; nerton v. Columbian, 37 N. Y. 174.
Mahony v. Aurecocha, 51 Cal. 429. « Jeffries v. Jeflfries, 39 Ala. 655
Confra, Gove V. Downer, 59 Vt. 139. (martial law); Hix v. Hix, 25 W.
^ Foscue V. Lyon, 55.N. Y. 631; Va. 481 (extent of Confederate lines);
Magle V. Chadoine, 30 Tex. 644; Dryden v. Stephens, 19 id. 1; United
"Smith V. Speed, 50 Ala. 376; Payner States v. Greathouse. 3 Abb. (U. S.)
V. Tread well, 16 Gal. 220 ; Harris v. 864. Contra, Kelly v. Story, 6
Herman, 78 Mo. 633; Simmons v. Heisk. 203.
Trumbo, 9 W. Va. 358; Prince v. 7 Ferdinand v. State, 39 Ala. 706.
Skellin, 71 Me. 361; Williams v. 8 United States v. Lucero, 1 N. M.
State, 64 Ind. 558 ; McKinnon t. Bliss, 433.
21 N. Y. 206; Ashley v. Martin, 50 9 People v. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 397.
Ala. 537; CoUoway v. Cassart, 45 w Killebrew v. Murphy, 3 Heisk.
Ark. 41 ; Yehn Jim v. Territory, 1 546.
Wash. 63 (Indian war). n Gates v. Johnson, 36 Tex. 144.
5 McKinnon v. Bliss, 31 N. Y. 206. 12 Morris v. Morris, 58 Ala. 443 ;
* Ogden V. Lund, 11 Tex. 688. United States v. American, 1 Woolw.
13 Ashley v. Martin, 50 Ala. 537. See cases in last note.
368
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
[§ 239.
So, generally, any minor incident which forms a part of
some greater event, or which is a factor in bringing about a
condition of affairs which will be judicially noticed, need not
be proved.' Thus, it has been held that the agreement of
AVilliam Penn with Lord Baltimore, fixing the boundaries
between the provinces of Maryland and Pennsylvania,^ and
the details of the history of Indian tribes resident in New
York,' form a part of the history of these states and need not
be shown in their courts.*
§ 239- Geographical facts. — Courts are bound to notice
the extent and subdivisions of the territory over, which the
government of which they are a part exercises its functions.
Thus, courts will take notice of the existence and location of
the legal divisions of the state, as towns and counties,^ and of
the representative districts into which a state is divided." But
217; Hart v. State, 55 Ind. 599; Sim-
mons V. Tiuiiibo, 9 W. Va, 358;
Keppel V. Petersburg R. Co., Chase's
Dec. 107 ; Harvey v. Walden, 33 La.
Aim. 163; Riddle v. Hill, 51 Ala. 224
1 Schooner Mersey, Blatchf. Prize
Cas. 187 ; Williams v. State, 67 Ga.
260 ; East Tenn. Iron Co. v. Gaskell,
3 Lea, 743 (suspension of statute of
limitation) ; Turner v. Patton, 49
Ala. 406; Humphreys v. Burnside,
4 Bush, 215 ; Hix v. Hix, 25 W. Va.
481; Rice v. Shoot, 27 Ark. 137;
Conger v. Weaver, 6 Cal. 548; Dob-
bin V. Bryan, 5 Tex. 267 (opening of
land office) ; Lamb v. Davenport, 1
Savpy. (U. S.) 609 (facts pertaining
to the settlement of Oregon); De
Cells V. United States, 13 Ct. CI. 117;
Conger v. Weaver, 0 Cal. 548 ; Irwin
V. Phillips, 5 Cal. 140; Russell v.
Jackson, 23 Wend. 376 (facts of ped-
igree in Debrett's Peerage).
2 Thomas v. Stigers, 5 Pa. St 480.
'Howard v. Moot, 64 N. Y. 262.
* The court may refresh its mem-
ory by consulting standard and well-
known historical and scientific
works. See ante, g 145.
« Campbell v. West, 86 Cal. 197;
V. Beeves, 46 Kan. 571;
Adams v. Harrington, 114 Ind. 66;
Forehand v. State, 53 Ark. 46 ; 3 S.
W. Rep. 728 : Borough v. Brown, 11
Pa. Co. Ct. R. 272 ; People v. Wood,
181 N. Y. 617 ; Linck v. Litchfield, 31
N. E. Rep. 123 : Winn. Lake Co. v.
Young, 40 N. H. 420; Goodwin v.
Appleton, 23 Me. 453 ; State v. Dun-
nell, 3 R. L 127; Com. v. Desmond,
103 Mass. 445; Overton v. State, 60
Ala. 73; State v. Reader, 60 Iowa,
537; Dexter v. Cranston, 41 Mich,
448; Schilling V. Territory, 2 Wash.
Ter. 383 ; Lewis v. State (Tex., 1893),
34 S. W. Rep. 903; People v. Sup-
piger, 103 111. 434 ; Terre Haute, etc.
Co. V. Pierce, 95 Ind. 496 ; Sullivan
V. People, 133 111. 385. Contra,
Grusenmeyer v. Logansport, 76 Ind.
549. The area of counties need not
be proved (Buckinghouse v. Gregg,
19 Ind. 401 ; Wright v. Hawkins, 28
Tex. 452), though the date of their
organization must be shown. Ells-
worth V. Nelson, 81 Iowa, 57 ; Rousey
V, Wood, 47 Ma App. 465; State v.
Cleveland, 80 Ma 108.
•> United States v. Johnson, 2 Sawy.
(U. S.) 483 ; United States v. Beebe,
3 Dak. 393.
§ 239.]
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
369
it has been held that the courts of a state cannot know judi-
cially of the existence of counties, towns or cities located out of
that state, and their existence and location will have to be
proved.'
Judicial notice will be taken of the general natural geo-
graphical features of the United States;- of the condition and
capacity of its rivers and waters, whether navigable or not;'
of the boundaries of the states;* that a portion of one state
had been separated from ' or ceded to another," or to the federal
government ; ' of the location and character of mountain ranges,"
the distances between places,' and their population as shown
by the census.^"
Though the courts are not bound to take notice of the time
it requires for the mails between places," they may do so.'^
' Richardson v. Williams, 2 Port.
(Ala.) 239; Woodward v. Railroad
Co., 21 Wis. 309; Riggin v. Collier,
6 Mo. 568; Ellis v. Park, 8 Tex. 205;
Whitlock V. Castro, 23 id'. 108.
2 Mossman v. Forrest, 27 Ind. 233 ;
Stroudsburg v. Brown, 11 Pa. Co.
Cfc. R. 272.
3 Brown v. Scofield, 8 Barb. 279;
People V. Mining Co,, 68 Cal. 138;
Com. v.. King, 150 Mass. 221; Cash
V. Auditor, 7 Ind. 227; Walker v.
Allen, 72 Ala. 456 ; Ross v. Faust,
54 Ind. 471 : Tewksbury v. Scbulen-
berg, 41 Wis. 584; Neaderheuser v.
State, 28 Ind. 257 ; Thurnian v. Mor-
rison, 14 B. Mon. 296.
*The Appollon, 9 Wheat. 874:
Peyroud v. Howard, 7 Pet. 343;
Tliorson v. Peterson, 9 Fed. Rep.
017; Ogden v. Lund, 11 Tex. 688;
llarrold v. Arrington, 64 Tex. 233.
5 Bank v. Machir, 18 W. Va. 271.
8 People V. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 397.
/Hewthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf. (Ind.)
159.
8 Casey v. Reeves, 26 Pac. Rep.
951; 46 Kan. 571; Price v. Page, 24
Mo. 65.
» Pearce v. Langft, 101 Pa. St. 511 ;
Mut. Ben, L, I. Co. v. Robison, 58
24
Fed. Rep. 723; McConnell v. Boudry,
4 T. B. Mon. 394; Rice v. Mont-
gomery, 4 Biss. 75; Hegard v. In-
surance Co. (Colo., 1890), 11 Pac. Rep.
594.
If Denair v. Brooklyn, 5 N. Y. S.
585; Forehand v. State, 13 S. W.
Rep. 728; 56 Ark. 46: People v.
Williams, 64 Cal. 87 ; State v. Bras-
camp, 54 N. W. Rep. 532 ; Welch v.
County, 29 W. Va. 63; State v.
County, 89 Mo. 237; Hawkins v.
Thomas, 3 Ind. App. 399; 29 N. E.
Rep. 157 ; Kalbrier v. Leonard, 34
Ind. 497. A court will notice the
fact that many persons of foreign
birth reside in a certain locality.
Kernitz v. L. L City, 50 Hun, 428 ;
3 N. Y. S, 144. Courts are not
bound to take notice of the loss in-
curred by a railroad company be-
cause an Indian reservation had been
located within the boundaries of its
land. EUing v. Thexton, 16 Pac.
Rep. 931.
" Wiggins V. Burkham, 10 Wall.
129 ; Rice v. Montgomery, 4 Biss. 75.
12 Pearce v. Langfit, 101 Pa. St. 507.
It may be remarked that placing a
letter in a street letter-box or hand-
ing it to a carrier or collector is
370 J0DICIAL NOTICE. [§ 240.
§ 240. Political facts — Elections. — The existence and
political and executive acts of the supreme authority to which
the court is subordinate will be judicial!}' noticed, particularly
if its existence has been the result of statutory enactment or
where its acts have assumed the form of laws regularly pro-
mulgated. Thus, the proclamations of the president of the
United States,^ the messages ^ and commissions of the gov-
ernor of the state,' the regulations settled by the heads of ex-
ecutive departments for carrying on business,* together with
the authenticity of the signatures and seals attached to such
documents, need not be shown b}' evidence.* The courts will
also take judicial notice of the date of the appointment or
accession to office of an executive official,' of his public acts,'
and of the date upon which his term expires by death or limita-
tion.' So it has been held that the courts will notice the days
of holding general elections;' that an election has been held,'"
the whole number of votes cast, and the result of the voting,"
together with the fact that the result is contested by the de-
feated candidate.'^
Judicial notice will be taken, in all collateral proceedings
not involving the title to the office, that certain persons are
mailing. Abb. Brief on Facts, §517; SHeizer v. State, 12 Ind. 350;
Pearce V. Langfit, swpra. State v. Boyd, 3i Neb. 435; 51 N.
1 The Greathouse Case, 2 Abb. (IT. W. Eep. 964.
S.) 382; Cuyler v. Ferrill, 1 Abb. (U. 'Jones v. United States, 137 U. S.
S.) 169. 203; Prince v. Siiillen, 71 Me. 361;
2Dowdell V. State, 58 Ind. 333; State v. Gramelspacher, 126 Ind.
Wells V. Railroad Co., 110 Mo. 286; 898; Campbell v. West, 86 Cal. 197.
19 S. W. Rep. 580 ; Jenkins v. Col- 8 Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Jones, 21
lard, 145 U. S. 546. S. W. Eep. 193; Doe v. Riley, 28
s State V. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449. Ala. 164; Martin v. Aultman, 80
< Burke v. Miltenberg6r, 19 Wall. Wis. 150; Eagland v. Wynn, 37 Ala.
519; Garling v. Van Allen, 55 N. Y. 33.
31; Low V. Hanson, 72 Me. 104; sstate v. MInnick, 15 Iowa, 123;
United States v. Williams, 6 Mont. Himmelnian v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 213;
379. Contra, Moore v. Worth, 3 Ellis v. Eeddin, 12 Kan. 306.
Duv. (Ky.) 308. loUrnston v. State, 78 Ind. 175.
6Com. T. Dunlop (Va., 1893). 16 Coreira, Ex parte Reynolds, 87 Ala.
S. E. Rep, 273 ; Jones v. Gale's Adm'r, 138.
4 Martin, 635; State v. Boyd, 34 Neb. "Thomas v. Com., 17 S. E. Eep.
435; 57 N. W. Rep. 964; State v. 788; State v. Swift, 69 Ind. 505;
Barrett, 40 Minn. 65 ; Davis v. Mc- Savage's Case, 84 Va. 58f .
Etiany, 150 Mass. 451. 12 Lewis v. Bruton, 74 Ala. 317.
§ 241.J
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
sn
actually the incumbents of the various subordinate offices,
state and federal, which they purport to hold, and for these
reasons their official character need not be affirmatively
shown.^ So courts will notice the place and time established
by law for the meeting^ and adjournment of congress and
the legislature,' the contents of their journals,* the usual mode
of proceeding and the constitutional and statutory? privileges
of their members.
§ 241. Scientific facts. — Courts will take notice of scien-
tific facts of an axiomatic character, but not of those upon
which there is a disagreement of opinion among men of emi-
nence in that line of research.' Thu^, it is not necessary to show
that kerosene', or natural gas is explosive;' that unoccupied
buildings are exposed to damage from fire;' that whisky, gin,'
rum,'" wine " and beer are intoxicating liquors; *^ that beer is a
malt liquor; '' that the sun " or moon '' sets or rises at a cer-
1 Kellar v. Moore, 51 Ala. 340 (com-
inissioner of deeds); Thompson v.
Haskell, 21 111. 215- (sheriff); Tim-
berlake v. Brewer, 59 Ala. 108 ; Cole-
man V. State, 63 id. 93 (justice of
the peace) ; Ede v. Johnson, 15 Cal.
58 ; Russell v. Sargent, 7 111. App. 98.
Cf. Davis V. McEnaney, 150 Mass.
451.
2 Perkins v. Woodfolk, 8 Baxt. 411,
3 Perkins v. Woodfolk, 8 Baxt. 411.
* McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407;
id. 414 ; Barnard v. Gall, 43 La. Ann.
959; People V. Stewart, 97 111. 133.
s St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Am. T. I.
Co., 33 Mo. App. 348; Com. v.
Marzynski, 149 Mass. 68; Luke v.
Calhoun, 52 Ala. 115; Lyon v.
Marine, 55 Fed. Rep. 964; Cozzens
V. Higgins, 1 Abb. Ct. App. Dec.
451; Eureka, etc. Co. v. Gazette, 35
Fed. Rep. 570 ; Trese v. State, 3 S.
Rep. 390 ; State v. Barber, 36 U. S.
318.
^ Wood V. Insurance Co., 46 N. Y.
421.
' Jamieson v. Ind. etc. Co., 46 N.
Y. 431. Contra, as to the inflam-
mable nature of gin and turpentine,
Mosley v. Insurance Co., 55 Vt. 142.
8 White V. Insurance Co., 83 Me.
279.
9 Com. V. Peckham, 2 Gray, 514.
"United States v. Angell, 11 Fed.
Rep. 54.
11 Kizer v. Randleman, 5 Jones' L.
428; State v. Packer, 80 N. C. 439.
12 State V. Effinger, 44 Mo. App. 81 ;
State V. Teissedre, 30 Kan. 484;
Wetzler v. Keely, 83 Ala. 444';
Thomas v. Com. (Va., 1893), 17 S.
E. Rep. 788; Maier v. State (Tex.,
1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 974.
1' United States v. Ducournac, 54
Fed. Rep. 138; AUer v. State, 55 Ala.
16 ; State v. Gayette, 11 R. 1. 593 ; Wat-
son V. State, 55 Ala. 158; Fenton v.
State, 100 Ind. 90. Whether a par-
ticular sort of beer is an intoxicating
drink was left to the- jury in Com-
monwealth V. Bloss, 116 Mass. 56;
State V. McCafferty, 63 Me. 233. So
" Lake Erie, etc. Co. v. Hatch, 6
Ohio Cir. Ct. 330.
15 Case V. Perew, 46 Hun, 57.
372
JDDICIAL NOTICE.
[§ 242.
tain hour; that a railroad is a common carrier,' or that its
operation on a city street increases traffic;^ that a mule is a
domestic animal;' that a fracture of the skull may produce
death;* the length of the period of gestation;* that no man
was ever known to be nine feet high,^ and that tobacco is
neither a di'ug nor medicine.'
Courts will not take notice of facts to be found only in en-
cyclopedias and similar worlis or of facts which do not form
a part of the general stock of scientific information.^ Thus,
the courts will not take notice that each concentric circle in a
cross-section of timber marks a year's growth; " that kerosene
is refined coal oil;'" that oleoniargarine is or is not unwhole-
some," or that a certain crime is physically impossible of com-
mission.'^
§ 242. Common and statutory law — Municipal ordi-
nances and local and foreign laws. — The rules, maxims and
principles of the common law which prevail in any jurisdic-
tion need not be shown in court." So the rules of the law
of cider or ale after it has fermented.
State T. Blddle, 54 N. H. 379. And
■whether blackberry wine is a spirit-
uous liquor is for the jury to decide.
iState V. Lowry, 74 N. C. 181.
1 Caldwell v. Richmoud, etc. Co.,
89 Ga. 550.
3 Bookman v. N. Y. El, R. R. Co.,
137 N. Y. 303.
3 State V. Gould, 26 W. Va. 258.
* McDaniel v. State, 76 Ala. 1.
5 King, V. LufE, 8 East, 193.
6 Hunter v. Railway Co., 116 N. Y.
615.
' Com. V. Marzynski, 149 Mass. 68.
In this case the court said : " Ordi-
narily, whether a substance or arti-
cle comes within a given description
is a question of fact ; but some facts
are so obvious and familiar that the
law takes notice of them and receives
them into its domain. If the proof
had been that the shop had been
kept open for the purpose of selling
guns or pistols, it would hardly be
contended that the judge might not
properly have ruled that the sale of
these articles was not a sale of drugs
or medicine. The court has judicial
knowledge of the meaning of com-
mon words, and may well rule that
guns and pistols are not drugs or
medicine, and may exclude the opin-
ions of witnesses who offer to testify
that they are."
' Engraving Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed.
Rep. 444; Culverhouse v. Wertz, 32
Mo. App. 34; Fowler v. Park, 48
Fed. Rep. 789; Meely Hee v. Hudson,
SI S. W. Rep. 175.
'Patterson v. McCausland, 3
Bland, 69.
'" Bennett v. Insurance Co., 8 Daly,
471.
II North. Mfg. Co. v. Chambers, 58
Mich. 381.
1'^ Ausman v. Veal, 10 Ind. 355.
''St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Weaver,
35 Kan. 413; Wilson v. Bumstead, 13
Neb. 1 . "The authority of th e ma x-
ims of the common laws rests upon
their general acceptance, and this
§ 2i2.]
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
373
of nations regulating tbe intercourse of civilized nations need
not beshown,^ as the courts of all civilized countries will take
notice of the principles of that law.^ So it is well settled that
notice will be taken of the law merchant' and of the customs
of persons engaged in particular avocations, such as mer-
chants;* railway companies,^ and other common carriers;" of
bankers,' mercantile agencies,* physicians,' conveyancers " and
public officials. ^^ So a court will take judicial notice of the
official character, signature and seal of a foreign or domestic
notary public attached to a protest for non-payment or other
instrument. ^^ Foreign customs forming no part of the law
merchant must be proved as matter of fact."
In America the federal courts will take notice judicially n'ot
only of the constitution and public statutes of the United
States," but of all state constitutions and statutes applicable to
cases pending in them,'' as well as of the decisions of the state
connotes their general notoriety.
Thus, as the courts cannot refuse to
know what is presumed to be within
the knowledge o£ all men — for
every one is presumed to know the
law — it is said that the doctrines,
axioms and principles of the com-
mon law are deposited in the breast
of the judges, to be applied to the
facts which are properly ascertained
or proved before them." 3 Bl. Com.
379.
1 1 Bl. Com. 75, 76, 85; Edie v. E.
I. Co., 2 Burr. 1226 ; The Scotia, 14
"Wall. 170.
^Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cranch,
434; Ocean Insurance Co. v. Francis,
2 Wend. 64.
a Munn v. Burch, 25 III. 35 ; Wig-
gin V. Chicago, 5 Mo. App. 347.
<Almy V. Simonson, 52 Hun, 535;
Bank v. Fitzhugh, 1 Har. & G. (Md.)
239; Gibson v. Stevens, 9 How.
(U. S.) 384; Watt v. Hoch, 25 Pa.
St. 411 ; Consequa v. Willings, 1 Pet.
225 ; Jewell v. Center, 25 Ala. 498 ;
Reed v. Wilson, 41 N. J. L. 29.
6 Lane v. L. E. E. Co., 23 N. Y.
Weekly Dig. 267; Isaacson v. N. Y.
Cent. R. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278.
estate v. Liquor, 73 Me. 278.
" Fleming v. McClure, 1 Brev. 428 ;
Brandas v. Barnett, 8 M. G. & S.
519; Bank v. Hall, 83 N. Y. 338;
Yerkes v. Bank, 69 id. 883.
8 Eaton v. Avery, 83 N. Y. 81.
SYeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335;
Chamoise v. Fowler, 8 Wend. 173.
10 Doe V. Hilder, 2 B. & Aid. 798.
iiBigelow V. Chatterton, 57 Fed.
Rep. 614.
12 Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 546;
Denmead v. Maack, 2 MacArthur,
475; United States v. Libby, 1 W. &
M. 221 , Stoddard v. Sloan, 65 Iowa,
680.
13 Dutch, etc. Co. v. Mooney, 12
Cal. 585; Munn v. Burch, 25 111. 21 ;
Turner v. Fish, 28 Miss. 306 ; Lewis
V. McClure, 8 Oreg. 278.
"Kessel v. Albetis, 56 Barb. 363
Murphy v. Hendricks, 57 Ind. 593
Morris v. Davidson, 49 Ga. 361
Laidley v. Cummings, 83 Ky. 607
Minis V. Schwarz, 37 Tex. 13.
isHinde v. Vattier, 5 Pet. 398
374
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
[§ 242.
courts construing them.^ On the other hand, the federal con-
stitutions and statutes need never be proved in the state
courts, as thej'-are bound to take judicial notice of their enact-
ment and contents,^ as well as of the constitutions and public
statutes of their own state.'
In conformity with the rule that courts will take judicial
notice of public statutes, municipal charters and acts incorpo-
rating public or quasi-pnhiio corporations need not be shown.*
Jones V. Hays, 4 McLean, 521;
Course v. Head, 4 Dall. 32 ; Elmen-
(lorf V. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 153 ; Cov-
ington B. Co. V. Shepherd, 30 How.
(1J. S.) 237; Knower v. Haines, 31
Fed. Rep. 513 ;. Fourth Nat. Bank v.
Francklyn, 120 U. S. 751 ; Jasper v.
Porter, 2 McLean, 579; Carpenter
V. Dexter, 8 Wall. 515; New Jersey
V. Yard, 95 U. S. 113; Gormley v.
Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623; Gordon v.
Hobart, 3 Sumn. 401; Newberry v.
Robinson, 36 Fed. Rep. 841 ; Hanley
T. Donoghue, 116U. S.4. The federal
courts will notice state laws only
so far as the state courts notice them
and as far they are called upon to
administer them. If the state court
is required to notice local or private
laws, a federal court in that state
must also do so. Abb. Brief on
Facts, 8 383, citing Beaty v. Know-
ler, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 153; Renaud v.
Abbott, 116 U. S. 277. " The circuit
courts of the United States are
created by congress, not for the pur-
pose of administering the local law
of a single state alone, but to admin-
ister the laws of all the states in the
Union in cases to which they re-
spectively apply. The judicial power
conferred on the general government
by the constitution extends to many
cases arising under the laws of the
different states, and this court is
called upon, in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, constantly to
take notice of and administer the
jurisprudence of all the states. That
jurisprudence, then, is in no sense a
foreign jurisprudence to be proved
in the courts of the United States by
the ordinary modes of proof by
which the laws of a foreign country
are to be established, but it is to be
judicially taken notice of in the
same manner as the laws of the
United States are taken notice of by
these courts." The court, by Story,
J., in Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. (U. S.)
624.
iCheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108;
Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 65;
Evans v. Railroad Co. , 5 Phila. 512.
2 Morris V. Davidson, 49 Ga. BSl ;
Caughran v. Gilman, 81 Iowa, 442;
46 N. W. Rep. 1005; Laidley v.
Cummings, 83 Ky. 606; Baylis v.
Chubb, 16 Gratt. 284; Wetumpka
V. Wharf Co., 63 Ala. 611; Dwyer
V. Breuham, 65 Tex. 536; Durch v.
Chippewa, 60 Wis. 227; Bird v.
Com., 31 Gratt. (Va.) 800; State
V. Cooper, 101 N. C. 684.
' Harpending v. Church, 16 Pet.
455; Van Swarton v. Com., 34 Pa,
St. 131 ; Bowen v. Missouri P. etc.
Co. (Mo., 1893), 34 S. W. Rep. 436;
Lane v. Harris, 16 Ga. 317; Berliner
V. Waterloo, 14 Wis. 378; State v.
Bailey, 16 Ind. 46; Binkort v. Jen-
sen, 94 111. 283.
^Albritten v. Huntsville, 60 Ala.
486; Briggs v. Whipple, 7 Vt. 15;
Washington v. Finley, 5 Eng. (Ark.)
433; State v. Murfreesboro, 11
§ 242.]
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
375
The same rule is also applicable to statutes amending or re-
pealing a city charter' or other public statute.^
The rule that public laws will be judicially noticed is not
violated by the fact that municipal ordinances and resolutions
must, independent!}' of statute, be pleaded and proved, as these
municipal enactments, like the by-laws of private corporations,'
are not public statutes within the meaning of the rule.* But
municipal courts will take judicial notice of ordinances.^
Courts will not take notice of private statutes afPecting an in-
dividual or small number of persons unless authorized by stat-
ute to do so;" for example, of a special act creating a private
Humph. (Tenn.) 217; fayne v.
Tread well, 16 Cal. 220; Stier v. Os-
calooaa, 41 Iowa, 353: Selma v. Per-
kins, 68 Ala. 145; Potwio v. John-
son, 108 111. 70 Solomon v. Hughes,
24 Kan. 211 ; State v. Sherman, 43
Mo. 210; Durch v. Chippewa, 60
Wis. 2?7; Dwyer v. Brenham, 65
Tex. 529; Pasadena v. Stimson, 27
Pac. Rep. 604; State v. Tosney, 26
Minn. 262; bjiith v Janesville, 52
Wis. 680; Burpenning v. Railroad
Go., 48 N. W. Eep. 444; Many v.
Titcomb, 19 Ind. 136.
■New Jersey V. Yard. 95 U. S. 11?;
State V. Bergen, 34 N. J. L. 439;
Swain V. Comatock, 18 Wis. 463;
Bow V. Allentown, 34 N. H 851;
Railroad v. Chenoa, 43 111. 309; Vir-
ginia City V. Manufacturing Co., 2
Nev. 86; Railroad v. Plumas Co., 37
Cal. '354. If the city lias been incor-
porated under a general law its in-
corporation must be shown. Temple
V. State, 15 Tex. App. 405; Morgan
V. Atlanta, 77 Ga. 662; Ingle v.
Jones, 43 Iowa, 286. Contra, House
V. Oreensburg, 93 Ind. 533.
2 Belmont v. Warrell, 69 Me. 314;
Parent v. Walmsley's Adm'r, 20
Ind. 83.
'The courts do not notice judicially
the by-laws of a private corporation
(Benev. Soc. v. Phillips, 36 Mich. 22),
and the same rule is recognized in
the case of the private rules for the
government of the members of a
board of brokers. Goldsmith v. Saw-
yer, 46 Cal. 209.
< Garvin v. Wells, 8 Iowa, 386;
Central Bank v. Baltimore, 20 Atl.
Rep. 444; Garland v. Denver, 11
Colo. 534 ; State v. Mayor, 1 1 Humph.
217;-Toung v. Bank, 4 Cranch, 384;
Porter v. Waring, 69 N. Y. 350;
Clapp V. Hartford, 35 Conn. 66;
Prell V. McDonald, 7 Kan. 436;
Luoker v. Com,, 4 Bush (Ky.), 440;
Ingle V. Jones, 48 Iowa, 886 ; Stier v.
Oscaloosa, 41 Iowa, 853 ; Case v. Mo-
bile, 30 Ala. 538; Clarke v. Bank, 10
Ark. 516 ; Pettit v. May, 34 Wis. 666 ;
People V. Potter, 35 Cal. 110 ; Winona
v. Burke, 23 Minn, 254; Briggs v.
Whipple, 7 Vt. 15 ; Beaty v. Knowler,
4 Pet. 153.
5 Moundsville v. Velton, 18 S, E.
Rep. 373; 35 W. Va. 217; Anderson
V. O'Donnell, 29 S. C. 355.
8 Hart V. Bait. etc. Co., 6 W. Va.
836 ; Somervill v. Winbush, 7 Gratt.
(Va.) 205: Bixler v. Barter, 3 Bush
(Ky.), 166; Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt.
786 ; Collier v. Society, 8 B. Mon. 68 ;
Halbert v. Skyler, 1 A. K. Marsh,
368,
376
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
[§ 242.
corporation,' or one relating exclusively to the settlement of
an estate.^ Such private acts relating to a feAv persons are not
matters of general public knowledge, and are regarded some-
what as (^waw'-contracts between the state and those persons
specially interested, with the terms of which the court is ig-
norant until it shall have ascertained them from the evidence.'
So courts will not take notice of foreign laws, either statute
or common, and they will usually have to be alleged and proved
as matters of fact.^ The states and territories of the United
1 Danville, etc. Co. v. State, 16 Ind.
456; Kelly v. Railroad Co., 58 Ala.
489; Holloway v. Eai!road Co., 23
Tex. 465 ; Jackson V; Plumb, 8 Johns.
295; Peoria, etc. Co. v. Scott, 116
111. 401. Sometimes proof of corpo-
ration charters is dispensed with by
statute unless incorporation is the
fact in issue. Star Brick Co. v. Reds-
dale, 36 N. J. L, 229. So when or-
ganized under general laws the
courts will notice the latter, but not
the incorporation under it. Coving-
ton Draw. Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How.
(U. S.) 227; Danville, etc. Co. v.
State, 16 Ind. 456.
2 Leland v. Wilkinson, 6 Pet. 317 ;
Ellis V. Eastman, 32 Cal. 447.
8 Collier v. Society, 8 B. Mon. 68;
Leland v. Wilkinson, 6 Pet. 817;
State V. Pose, 33 La. Ann. 932;
Banks v. Gruben, 87 Pa. St. 468;
Perdicaris v. Trenton, etc. Bridge
Co. , 5 Dutch. (N. J.) 367 ; Broad Street
Hotel Co. v. Weaver, 57 Ala. 26;
Allegheny v. Nelson, 25 Pa. St. 382.
"The courts of justice are bound,
ex officio, to take notice of public
acts without their being pleaded, for
they are part of the general law of
the land, which all persons, and pai'-
ticularly the judges, are presumed to
know; but they are not bound to
take notice of private acts unless
they be specially pleaded and shown
in proof by the party claiming the
effect of them." 1 Kent's Com. 430.
i Millard v. Truax (Mich., 1888), 41
N. W. Rep. 328 ; Pickering v. Fisk,
6 Vt. 102 ; Liverpool, etc. G. W. Co.
V. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 464
(English statute); Spellier, etc. Co.
V. Geiger, 23 Atl. Rep. 547; 147 Pa.
St. 399; Cont. Bank v. Wells, 73
Wis. 852; Leather wood v. Sullivan,
81 Ala. 458 ; Dainese v. Hall, 91 U. S.
13 ; Bouldin v. Phelps, 80 Fed. Rep.
547; Polk v. Butterfield, 9 Colo. 325;
Taylor, v. Boardman, 25 "Vt. 581;
Ludlow V. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns.
95 (foreign revenue laws) ; Insurance
Co. V. Forchheimer, 86 Ala. 541 ; St.
Louis V. San Francisco R, R. Co., 85
Kan. 426; Mobile, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Whitney, 39 Ala. 468; Walsh v. Dart,
12 Wis. 635; Cavender v. Guild, 4
Cal. 250; Anderson v. Anderson, 23
Tex. 639; Talbot v. Seaman, 1 Cranch
(U. S.), 38; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How.
(U. S.) 400; Chumasero v. Gilbert,
24 111. 298 ; Haines v. Hanrahan, 105
Mass. 480; Cutler v. Wright, 22 N.
Y. 472. In Liverpool Steam Co. v.
Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 444, tlie
court said: "The law of Great Brit-
ain, since the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, is the law of a foreign
country, and like any other foreign
law is a matter of fact which the
courts of this country cannot be pre-
sumed to be acquainted with or to
have judicial knowledge of, unless it
is pleaded and proved. The rule
that the courts of one country can-
§ 242.] JUDICIAL NOTICE. 377
States are so far foreign to one another that this rule is gen-
erally applicable to their courts.^
As constituting an exception to the rule which has been
just stated, it has been held that in those parts of the United
States which formerly constituted parts of the colonial pos-
sessions of France, Spain or Kussia, the laws in force at the
time such territory became a part of the United States need
not be proved as foreign laws, but will be judicially noticed.^
Another exception to the rule that a state court will not
judicially notice the laws of a sister commonwealth is occa-
sioned by the application of the principle that a federal court
will always take notice of the state statutes which it is actually
called upon to administer. Where any question is litigated in
a state court involving the construction or enforcement of the
federal constitution or statutes, and is or might be subse-
quentl}' appealed to a federal court, the statutory law of that
state, so far as it would be judicially noticed by the appellate
federal court, will, it has been held, be judicially noticed by
the courts of other states also.'
Treaties made by the federal government with the Indian
tribes or with a foreign government are a component part of
the supreme statutory law * and possess the full power and
efficacy of an act of congress.' The courts, both federal and
not take cognizance of the law oT ^Crandall v. Sterling, 1 Colo. 106;
another without plea and proof has Pecquet v. Pecquet, 17 La. Ann. 204 ;
been constantly maintained at law Chouteau v. Soulard, 9 Mo. 581 ;
and in equity." United States v. Perot, 8 Otto, 438 ;
1 Thatcher v. Morris, 11 N. Y. 437; Adams v. Norris, S3 How. (U. S.)
Wilson V. Cockrell, 8 Mo. 7; St 353; Payne v. Tread well, 16 Cal.
Louis, etc. Co. v. Weaver, 35 Kan. 231; Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blatch.
413 ; 31 Pac. Rep. 408 ; Owen V. Boyle, 157. The same exception obtains
15 Me, 147 ; Billingsley v. Dean, where new states are formed by the
11 Ind. 331 ; Hanley v. Donoghue, subdivision of one already existing.
116 U. S. 1 ; Sloan v. Torry, 78 Mo. Delano v. Joysling, 1 Litt. (Ky. )
633; Eastman v. Crosby, 90 M^ss. 117; Hblley v. HoUey, 13 Am. Dec.
306 ; Bradshaw v. Mansfield, 18 Tex. 343.
App. 31. The law will be presumed * Butcher v. Brownsville, 3 Kan.
to be known to foreigners who con- 70; Morse v. Hewett, 38 Mich. 481
tract abroad where the contract is to State v. Hinchman, 27 Pa. St. 479
be carried out in this country. De- Paine v. Schenectady, 11 E. L 411
Witt V. Brisbane, 16 N. Y. 508. Con- Fellows v. Menashia, 11 Wis. 558.
tra where such a contract is to be *U. S. Const., art. VI, cl. 3.
performed abroad. Merch. Bank v. 'Holmes v, Jennison, 14 Pet. 569;
Spalding, 9 N. Y. 53. Doe v. Braden. 16 How. 035; Hunen-
378 JUDICIAL NOTICE. [§§ 243, Mi.
state, are bound to take judicial notice of their existence,
dates, character and contents, and of the rights of all persons
under them.*
Finally, it may be noted that the legal rate or amount of
interest prevalent in the jurisdiction need not be shown, as
the court will compute it,^ though a contrary rule obtains as
regards the legal rate abroad,' or even in a neighboring coun-
try.*
§243. Foreign nations, seals and official acts.— The ex-
istence of foreign governments need not be proved, for a court
will take judicial notice of this fact and will recognize the re-
spective title, flag and seal* of any state whose existence de
facto or dejure has been admitted by the sovereignty within
whose jurisdiction the court is located.^ Where a foreign
government has not been acknowledged its existence must be
proved,' while, if it has been acknowledged, the fact of its
acknowledgment, being a public executive act, will be judi-
cially noticed.^
§ 244. Terms of courts, records, rules of practice and
judicial proceedings. — A court will ordinarily take judicial
notice of its own records,' of the beginning i" and length of its
stein V. Lynhara, 10 Otto, 483. See, Johns, 4 Dall. 416 ; Santissima v.
also, 1 Kent's Com. 31, 33. Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 273, 335 ; Lazier
1 Godfrey v. Godfrey, 17 Ind. 6; v. Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146.
Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 78 : United 7 1 Kent's Com. 189 ; United States
States V. Payne, 2 McCrary C. C. v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610 ; Yrissari v.
289; Dole v. Wilson, 16 Minn. 472; Clement, 2 C. & P. 223.
Montgomery v. Deeley, 3 Wis. 623 : 8 Taylor v. Barclay, 3 Sim. 213.
United States v. Reynes, 9 How. ^9 Dewey v. St. Albans Co,, 13 Atl.
(U. S.) 127: Jones v. Laney, 3 Tex. Rep. 224; Dines v. People, 39 III.
343. Cf. American Ins. Co. v. Can- App. 565; Minor v. Stone, 1 La. Ann.
ter, 1 Pet. 511; Foster v. Neilson, 288; Farrar v. BoUes, 55 Tex. 193;
2 Pet. 314 ; United States v. Arre- Brucker v. State, 19 Wis. 539 ; Anix
dondo, 6 id. 691. v. Miller, 54 Iowa, 541 ; Robinson v.
2 School Dist. No. 1 v. Lyford, 27 Brown, 83 111. 379 ; Jordan v. Circuit
Wis. 508. Court, 69 Iowa, 177; State v. Postle-
^Coghlan v. Railroad, 143 U. S. wait, 14 Iowa, 446. Contra, Lake
101. Merced W. Co. v. Cowles, 31 ChI.
^Kermott v. Ayer, 11 Mich. 181. 215; Baker v. K.gatt, 111 U. S. HI;
The rates will not be presumed to be State v. Edwards, 19 Mo. 674; Stan-
the same. ley v. MoElrath, 86 Cal. 449, where
s Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 476. the records of one case are to be
sSchoerkin v. Swift, 19 Blatch. used in another.
(U. S.) 209; Church v. Hubbart, 3 '» Kidder v. Blaisdell, 45 Me. 461.
Cranoh, 187, 238; United States v.
§ 244.]
JUDICIAL NOTICE.
379
terms;' of its ofiBcials,^ as sheriff or marshal;' of the signa-
ture of its clerk* or its attorneys of record,^ its rules of prac-
tice and procedure; nor is it necessary to prove similar facts
appertaining to other courts located in the same jurisdiction.*
A court of superior or appellate jurisdiction will also take no-
tice of the officers, judges,' seals,^ terms,' organization, juris-
diction'" and powers of inferior courts." Where insulting
language is used towards a judge holding court, he may in
committing the offender for contempt act solely and exclu-
sively upon his own knowledge of the words used,'^ although
under such circumstances it is not competent for him to take
judicial notice of the fact that the offender had been thereto-
fore tried and found guilty of a previous contempt of the
same court. '^
' Fabyan v. Russell, 38 N. H. 84.
2 Norvell v. McHenry, 1 Mich. 327 ;
Land Co. v. Calhoun, 16 W. Va, 363;
Dyer v. Last, 51 111. 179.
3 Slaughter v. Barnes, 8 A. K.
Marsh. 412; Alexander v. Burnham,
18 Wis. 199; Ingram v. State, 27
Ala. 17; Thompson v. Haskell, 21
111. 315. But the ofBcial character
of deputy-sheriffs and deputy-mar-
shals must be shown. Potter v.
Luther, 3 Johns. 431 ; Land v. Pat-
terson, Minor (Ala.), 14; Ward v.
Henry, 19 Wis. 76 ; Bank v. Curran,
10 Ark. 142'; Alford v. State, 8 Tex.
A pp. 545.
•I Yell V. Lane, 41 Ark. 53 ; Buell v.
State, 72 Ind. 533; Alderman v. Bell,
9 Cal. 315; Land Co. v. Calhoun, 16
W. Va. 363.
•■"Masterson v. Leclaire, 4 Minn.
108.
•^Eees V. Lowenstein (Minn., 1888),
40 N. W. Rep. 370; Kenosha v.
Shedd, 82 Iowa, 140 ; 48 N. W. Rep.
933; Ohm v. San Francisco (Gal.,
1890), 25 Pac. Rep. 155; Stanley v.
McElrath, 86 Cal. 449; Olmstead v.
Thompson, 8 S. Rep. 755; Benson
V. Christian, 129 Ind. 535; State v.
Ulrich, 110 Mo. 350; 19 S. W. Rep.
656; A'exander v. Gish {Ky., 1891),
17 S. W. Rep. 287. Gf. Holly v.
Bass, 68 Ala. 206.
' Graham v. Anderson, 43 111. 514.
8 State V. Snowden, 1 Brews. (Pa.)
218; Mangum v. Webster, 7 Gill, 78.
»Stubbs V. State, 53 Miss. 437;
Pugh V. State, 2 Head, 337; Will-
iams V. Hubbard, 1 Mich. 446 ; Mc-
Ginnis v. State, 24 Ind. 500; Bethune
V. Hale, 45 Ala. 533; State v. Ham-
met, 13 Ind. 448; Davidson v. Peti-
colas, 34 Tex. 37 ; Simms v. Todd, 72
Mo. 288.
'"Masterson y. Mathews, 60 Ala.
260; Stiles v. Stewart, 13 Wend. 473;
Tucker v. State, 1 1 Md. 322 ; Kilpat-
rick V. Com., 31 Pa. St. 198.
11 Hancock v. Worcester, 18 Atl.
Rep. 1041 ; Nelson v. Ladd, 54 N. W.
Rep. 309 (S. D., 1893); Vahle v.
Brackenseick (III., 1893), 34 N. E.
Rep. 524; Hatcher v. Rocheleau, 18
N. Y. 86; Landlin v. Anderson, 76
Ala. 403; Cherry v. Baker, 17 Md.
75; Kilpatrick v. Com,, 31 Pa. St.
198 ; Dorman v. State, 56 Ind. 454 ;
Lewis V. Wintrebe, 76 Ind. 13; Cut-
ter V. Caruthers, 48 Cal. 178.
13 State V. Gibson, 10 S. E. Rep. 58 ;
33 W. Va. 97.
"Myers v. State (Ohio, 1888), 23
N. E. Rep. 43; Ralphs v. Hensler, 33
380 JUDICIAL NOTICE. [§ 2ii.
As respects all matters of which judicial notice is taken,
the judge may, M'here his knowledge is lacking or his memory
indistinct, consult any person or such works of reference as
he may select.'
Pao. Rep. 243 ; Jordan v. Circuit ed.), § 81 ; Reed v. Wilson, 41 N. J.
Court, 69 Iowa, 177. L. 29, holding that a court may re-
1 Wagner's Case, 6t Me. 17S ; fer to an almanac. See, also, Case
United States v. Teschmaker, 32 v. Perew,,46 Hun (N. Y.), 57.
How. (U. S.) 393; Taylor Bv. (7th
CHAPTER XIX.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE.
247. Burden of proof defined.
248. Burden of proof in special
proceedings.
249. Burden of proof in criminal
trials.
250. Proof of negative — Facts best
known to parly alleging.
§ 251. When pldintiff may open and
close.
252. When defendant may open
and close.
253. Right to open and close in
special proceedings.
254. Right, when discretionary.
§ 247. Burden of proof defined.— The phrase "burden of
proof" may be defined as that "obligation which the law im-
poses on a party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing
necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, to estab-
lish it prima facie by proof." ' The law casts the burden of
proof, as a general rule, upon the party maintaining the af-
firmative side of the issue. In other words, the party who
alleges his possession of a legal right is under the necessity of
substantiating his allegation b}'^ a preponderance of proof.'
This rule is intended to expedite the administration of justice;
and to aid in the ascertainment of the truth by requiring the i
evidence to come, in the first instance, from the party whose
allegations are most susceptible of direct and simple proof.'
The two phrases "burden of proof" and the "weight of evi-
dence" are quite diverse in meaning. The burden of proof is
fixed at the inception of the trial and does not change at any
1 Anderson's Law Diet. , citing Peo-
ple V. MoCann, 16 N. Y. 66; Willett
V. Rich, 142 Mass. 357.
2 " Whoever desires any court to
give judgment as to any legal right
or liability dependent on the exist-
ence or non-existence of facts which
he asserts or denies to exist must
])rove that those facts do or do not
exist." Stephen's Dig. Ev., art. 9:i.
3Lauer v. Kuder (111., 1893), 34 N.
E. Rep. 484; Columbus Watch Go.
V. Hodenpyle, 135 N. Y. 430; Hyde
V. Shank, 93 Mich. 535; First Nat.
Bank v. Lowrey (Neb., 1893), 64 N.
W. Rep. 568; Costigan v. Mohawk,
etc. Co., 3 Denio, 609; Panama, etc.
Co. V. Johnson, 63 Hun, 629; Steven-
son V. Marony, 6 Ind. 330 ; Jones v.
Kennedy, U Pick, 125, 132.
382 BUEDEN OF PEOOF, ETC. [§ 247.
later stage of the proceeding.^ The weight of evidence, on
the contrar}'^, fluctuates from one party to the other, according
to the strength and character of the proofs produced by either
side in affirmance or in denial of the facts in issue, and the
necessity for the production of a preponderance of evidence'
is thus shifted from side to side.^
The burden of proof, *. «., the duty or obligation of making
oat a. pri?na facie c&se, &nd the obligation of convincing the
jury by a preponderance of the evidence, or in criminal trials
beyond a reasonable doubt, may both be imposed upon the
same party and may remain upon him throughout the trial,
though such is by no means always the case. Suppose the
plaintiff introduces evidence upon all the essential points
which he alleges, thus making a prima facie case upon which,
if it is not met by any evidence on the part of the defendant,
the court would be justified in directing a verdict in his favor.
So far he has both sustained the burden of proof and has pro-
duced a preponderance of evidence. But if his case as thus
made out is met by some evidence on the part of thedefend-
ant sufficient to send the case to the jury, the plaintiff will
not be entitled to a verdict on what he has proved, unless the
whole evidence, taking in consideration what the defendant
has shown, preponderates in the plaintiff's favor, though he
has complied with the rule requiring him to sustain the bur-
den of proof, i. <?., to show a prima facie case.' Thus, where
one sues on a written contract, he sustains the burden of proof
satisfactorily by offering the writing in evidence. He need
not prove the consideration as a part of his case, as the valid-
ity and sufficiency of the writing will be presumed. But
where the defendant alleges and seeks to prove a failure or
invalidity of consideration, or to show fraud in procuring the
contract, the obligation is on the plaintiff to show a good con-
sideration and that he has acted in good. faith by a prepon-
derance of all the evidence in the case.''
1 Lake Ont. etc. Co. v. Judson, 123 v. Long, 44 Mo. App. 141 ; Kitner v.
N. Y. 278. "Whitlock, 88 111. 513 ; Eaton v. Alger,
2 See the remarks of the court in 47 N. Y, 451 ; Blanchard v. Young,
Central B. Corp. v. Butler, 2 Gray 11 Cush. (Mass.) 345; Pease v. Cole,
i), 132. 53 Conn. 71.
3 Scott V. Wood, 81 Cal. 400 ; Heine- * First Nat. Bank v. MoConnell, 17
man v. Heard, 63 N. Y. 448; Long N. Y. S. 422; 63 Hun, 625; Western
§ 248.]
383
The importance of ascertaining on whom the burden of
proof is cast results from the rule by which that party is enti-
tled to open and close the case in respect to the introduction
of evidence and the argument of counsel. As a test to determine
where the burden of proof lies, it has been proposed that it
should be imposed upon that the party who, upon the plead-
ings and the admissions of record, would be defeated if no
evidence were offered on either side.' So where the defend-
ant admits the whole cause of action as alleged by the plaint-
iff, inclusive of the damages or sum which is claimed, but pleads
new matter by way of confession and avoidance, as payment,
fraud, tender or release, or pleads a counter-claim or set-off,
the burden of proof is cast on him.^
§ 248. Burden of proof in special proceedings. — It is also
necessary to consider the burden of proof in proceedings not
at common law and where no actual issue is involved, as a
Nat. Bank v. Wood, 19 N. Y. S. 81 ;
Galvin v. Meridian Nat. Bank, 139
Ind. 439;Bum!iam V. Davis, 144 Mass.
104; Hogue v. Williamson (Tex.,
1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 762. For cases
in which the burden of proof to sho w
hona fides was on the holder of the
note, see Cover v. Myers (Md., 1892);
23 Atl. Rep. 856; Clafy v. Farrow,
18 N. Y. S. 160 ; Joy v. Diefendorf,
180 N. Y. 6; Kain v. Bare (Ind.,
lish, but to maintain the proposition
upon which his own case rests, not-
withstanding such contradictory
testimony, and upon the whole evi-
dence in the case. The distinction
m ay be narrow, but it is real and often
decisive." Wells, J., in Wilder v.
Coles, 100 Mass. 490 ; Willett v. Rich,
143 Mass. 357.
1 Thompson on Trials, § 333; 1
Greenl. on Ev., § 74; 1 Taylor on
1892), 31 N. E. Rep. 305; Hazard v. Ev., § 338; Kent v. White, 27 Ind.
Spencer (R. I., 1893), 23 Atl. Rep.
729. " The burden of proof resting
on a plaintiff is co-extensive only
with the legal proposition on which
his case rests. It applies to every
fact which is essential to or is nec-
essarily involved in that proposition ;
not to facts relied upon in defense
to establish an independent proposi-
tion, however inconsistent with that
upon which the plaintiff's case de-
pends. It is for the defendant to
furnish the proof of such facts, and
when he has done so the burden is
upon the plaintiff, not to disprove
those particular facts, nor the prop-
osition which they tend to estab-
390. So by statute. See Crabtree
V. Atchison (Ky., 1893), 20 S. W.
Rep. 266. " The burden of proving
any fact necessary to be proved in
order to enable any person to give
evidence of any other fact is on the
person who wishes to give such evi-
dence." Stephen's Dig. Ev., art. 97.
2 Fairbanks v. Erwin, 15 Colo. 366 ;
Truesdale v. Hoyle, 39 111. App. 532;
Auerbach v. Peetsch, 18 N. Y. S.
453 ; Brown v. Tanrick, 20 N. Y. S.
369; Suiter v. Park Nat. Bank, 35
Neb. 373; Hamilton v. Coal Co., 61
Hun, 634; Woodson Mach. Co. v.
Morse, 47 Kan, 429.
384
BUEDEN OF PEOOF, ETC.
[§ 249.
proceeding to probate a will. Here the proponent of the
will is regarded as taking the affirmative, and is compelled to
assume the burden of proof in the first instance by showing
the valid execution of the will,' and the testamentary capacity
of the testator;'^ while the contestants, if any, have cast upon
them the burden of proving that the instrument offered w.as
procured by fraud or undue influence practiced upon the tes-
tator.'
§ 349. Burden of proof in criminal trials. — The burden
of proof and the obligation to convince the jury beyond a
reasonable doubt upon the general issue of the prisoner's guilt
is in criminal trials upon the state throughout.* Though the
defendant produce no evidence, it is still tiie duty of the court
to submit the prima facie case against him to the jury, and
to cqnvict him they should be convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt of his guilt.' If the defendant shall plead an alibi, or
that the person for whose homicide he is indicted is alive,^the
burden of proof to establish either fact is upon him;' and if
1 Kennedy v. Upshaw, 66 Tex. 443 ;
Bee V. Bowman (Tenn., 1891), 14 S.
W. Rep. 481 ; Seebrock v. Fedawa
(Neb., 1891), 46 N. W. Rep. 650;
Mathews' Adm'r v. Furness (Ala.,
1891), 8 S. Rep. 661 ; Goss v. Turner,
21 Vt. 437.
2 Norton v. Paxton, 110 Mo. 456;
19 S. W. Rep. 807 ; Knox v. Knox
(Ala,, 1893), 11 S. Rep. 20i; Jones v.
Jones, 63 Hun, 630; Harrison v.
Bishop, 131 Ind. 161 ; 30 N. E. Rep.
1069; Prentiss v. Bates, 93 Mich.
234 ; Graybeal v. Gardner, 34 N. E.
Rep. 528; Wilbur v. Wilbur, 139 III.
893.
^Maddox v. Maddox (Mo,, 1893),
31 S. W. Rep. 499; Chandler v. Jost
(Ala,, 1893), 11 S. Rep, 636; Living-
ston's Appeal (Conn., 1893), 26 Atl.
Rep. 470; Lynch v. Doran (Mich.,
1893), 54 N. W. Rep, 883; Brown v.
Foster, 113 Mo. 297.
<Com. y. MoKee, 1 Gray, 62-65;
Lilienthal's Tobacco v. United States,
97 U. S, 337, 366; Turner v, Com.,
86 Pa. St. 54, 74; People v. Hill, 49
Hun, 433.
5 See ante, § 6 ; State v. Wingo, 66
Mo. 181 ; State v. Patterson, 45 Vt.
308; Black v. State, 1 Tex. App.
868; People v. Perini, 94 Cal. 573;
Day V. State, 31 Tex. App. 313;
Horn V. State, 30 Tex, App. 601 ; 17
S. W. Rep, 1094 ; Slado v. State. 39
Tex. App, 381 ; People v. Tarm Poy,
86 Cal. 335; People v. Downs, 133
N. Y. 558 ; State v. Taylor, 1 Houst.
Cr. Cas. (Del.) 436 ; MoDaniel v. State,
76 Ala. 366 ; People v. West, 49 Cal.
610; Dixon v. State, 13 Fla. 636;
Reid V. State, 50 Ga. 536 ; State v.
Knight, 43 Me. 11 ; Com. v. Webster,
59 Mass. 295; People v. McCarthy,
110 N. Y. 309; State v. Byera, 100
N, C. 313; Com. v. Daum, 58 Pa. St.
9; United States v. Mingo, 3 Curt.
C. C. 1 ; Hogan v. State, 36 Wis. 296.
6 Com, V. Webster, 5 Cush. 295;
State V. Vincent, 24 Iowa, 570.
' Westbrook v. State (Ga., 1898), 16
S. E. Rep. 100; French v. State, 13
219.]
BUEDEN OF PEOOF, ETC.
385
on either of' these points the evidence of an alihi in connec-
tion with all the testimony raises a reasonable doubt of the
presence of the accused, the jury must acquit him.'
Upon the subject of the harden of proof where the defense
is insanity two views are held. By one class of cases it is
held tbat, the existence of the prisoner's sanity being an es-
sential fact, the proof of which is necessary to make the act
of which he is accused a crime, it must, like all other neces-
sary facts, be proved prima faoie, by the prosecution, as a
part of its case. The presumption of law that every person
is of sound mind^ must of course be taken into consideration
as sufficient to sustain the preliminary burden of proof on this
point.' When this presumption is rebutted or overthrown by
facts tending to show a lack of mental capacity, the duty
still rests upon the government to satisfy the jury upon the
whole evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt of the pris-
oner's sanity.* Elsewhere the rule is stated broadly that
where insanity is relied on as a defense the burden of proof
is on the defendant; and though he need never prove his in-
sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, it is sometimes said that he
must do so by a preponderance of the evidence.' But the
Ind. 670; Ware v. State, 67 Ga. 649;
State V. Ward, 61 Vt. 193; State v.
McCraoken, 66 Iowa, 569 ; 34 N. W.
Rep. 43 ; State v. Henrick, 63 Iowa,
414; Johnson v. State, 31 Tex. A pp.
368: Turner v. Com., 86 Pa. St. 54;
State V. Reitz, 8.3 N. C. 634 ; State v.
Johnson, 91 Mo. 439; People v. Fong,
64 Cal. 353; State v. Jennings, 81
Mo. 185; Garrity v. People, 107 111.
163; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 334.
Contra, McLaiu v. State, 18 Neb. 154;
31 N. W. Rep. 720. See, also, ante,
§6.
'Howard v. State, 50 Ind. 193;
Murphy v. State (Fla.. 1893), 18
S. Rep. 453; State v. Beasley (.Iowa,
1893), -50 N. W. Rep. 570; State v.
Sanders, 106 Mo. 188; State v. Taylor
(Mo., 1893), 23 S. W. Rep. 806;
Adams v. State, 38 Fla. 511. In
Briceland v. Com., 74 Pa. St. 409, the
25
court said : " Tiie defense must cover
the time when the offense is sliown
to have been committed so as to pre-
clude the possibility of presence at
the locus in quo. This impossibility
is to be proven like any other fact."
2Seea)iie, §331.
SBrotherton v. People, 75 N. Y.
159.
^O'Connell v. O'Brien, 87 N. Y.
577; Com. v. Pomeroy, 117 Mass.
143; Hefron v. State, 8 Fla. 73; State
V. Millison, 15 La. Ann. 537; State
V. Hamilton, 55 Mo. 530; Dass Case,
1 Gratt. (Va.) 557; State v, Jones, 50
N. H. 370 ; State v. Wilner, 40 Wig.
304; Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170;
Chase V. People, 40 111. 353; 'Walker
V. People, 88 N. Y. 81 ; Guetig v.
State, 66 Ind. 91 ; Cunningham r.
State, 56 Miss. 269.
5 Walker v. People, 88 N. Y. 81;
386 BURDEN OF PEOOF, ETO. [§ 250.
view which has received fullest support, and one by which
perhaps the lacli of harmony in the authorities may be avoided,
is that while the burden to show insanity is on the defendant,
yet if he introduces evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable
doubt in the minds of the jury on that point, it is the duty
to acquit.' This, it seems, is but stating in another form the
proposition that it is the duty of the state to satisfy the jury
beyond a reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt upon all the
evidence, and if this is so,,, the seeir.ing divergence of the cases
is reconciled.^
§ 250. Proof of negative — Facts best known to party
alleging. — Though the general rule is that the burden of proof
is cast on him who maintains the affirmative, because the
affirmative of any proposition is most susceptible of direct
proof, yet it should not be considered that the negative, *'. «.,
a denial or defense, is incapable of proof. Particularly if
the negative is more than a mere denial of an affirmative
proposition — in other words, where it involves ^-Mas^-affirnia-
tive and incidental allegations of time, place or manner — the
party asserting it may and should assume the burden of proof.
The natural probability of the truth of the affirmative, the
fact that prior to the introduction of any evidence in the case
the affirmative is supported by some rebuttable presumption
of law, or the fact that the means and instrurhents of proof
are peculiarly in the hands of the party alleging a negative,
will furnish some further considerations tending to emphasize
the propriety under certain circumstances of casting the burr
den of proof on the negative.'
People V. Travers, 88 Cal. S38; People rison, 36 W. Va. 739 ; State v. Davis,
V. Taylor, 138 N. Y. 398; People v. 109 N. C. 780; Langdon v. People,
Bemmei-ly (Cal., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 133 111. 383; Fisher v. State, 30 Tex.
?63; Lynch v. Com., 77 Pa. St. 305; App. 503; State v. Crawford, 33 Am.
McLeod V. State, 31 Tex. Cr. App. 331. L. Reg. 31 ; Moore v. Com. (Ky., 1833),
I Brotherton v. People, 75 N: Y. 18 S. W. Rep. 833 ; Boiling v. State
159; Casey v. People, 31 Hun, 538; (Ark., 1891), 18 S. W. Rep. 658; State
People V. MoCann, 16 N. Y. 58 ; v. West, 1 Houst. Cr. Cas. 371 ; State
Wallers v. People, 33 N. Y. 147. v. Spenser, 21 N. J. L. 196; State v.
. 2 King v. Stuart, 91 Tenn. 617; Coleman, 20 S. C. 444.
State V. Schaefer (Mo., 1893), 23 S. W. 3 Best, Ev. (Am. ed., 1883), §§ 270,
Rep. 447 ; Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 373, 876 ; Colorado Coal & Iron Co.
170; Faulkner v. Territory (N. M., v. United States, 133 U. S. 317.
1893), 30 Pac. Rep. 905; State v. Har-
§ 250.] BUED15N OF PROOF, ETC. 387
In a criminal prosecution the burden of proving the guilt
of the accused is upon the prosecution throughout. Hence, if
the non-existence of some fact, or the non-performance of some
dut}', is a constituent and essential element in the crime with
which he is charged, the burden of proving this negative alle-
gation of non-existence or non-performance is upon the pros-
ecution.^
So in a civil proceeding, where the plaintiff's case is based
upon a negative allegation, the proof of which is essential, as
in an action brought to recover damages for a malicious pros-
ecution when the non-existence of a probable cause for the ar-
rest or prosecution is a material fact of his case, he will be
called upon to prove it.^ Again, where it is alleged that the
contract which is sued on is not the contract which was made,'
or where an alteration in a note is alleged,* or its genuineness
is disputed by the alleged maker,' or a deed is alleged to be
invalid because of incapacity of the grantor to execute it,* or
in an action to recover a penalty for the non-performance of
some specific act,^ the burden of proof is on the party alleg-
ing the negative.' If a fact is peculiarly within the knowl-
edge of one part}' rather than the other, the burden of proof
is cast upon him who has the better means of proof. This
rule may and does result very often in casting the burden of
proof upon the party alleging a negative fact.' So, for exr
'Com. V. Samuel, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 933; Pendleton v. Srai.ssaert(Colo.,
103; State V. Morphy, 83 Iowa, 270; 1893), 39 Pac. Rep. 531; Galvin v.
State V. Hirsch, 45 Mo. 439. Meridian Nat. Bank, 129 Ind. 439.
n Greenl., §78; Lucas v. Hunt "Trimbov. Trimbo, 47 Minn. 389;
(Ky., 1891), 15 S. W. Rep. 781 ; Nash Chancellor v. Donell (Ala., 1893), 10
V. Hall, 4 Ind. 444; Lane v, Crom- S. Rep. 910.
bie, 12 Pick. 177. 'Little v. Thompson, 3 Greenl.
3 Sparks v. Sparks (Kan., 1893), 33 (Me.) 238;, Com. v. Samuel, 2 Pick.
Pac. Rep. 893 ; Meentz V. Reiken, 42 (Mass.) 103; Com. v. Maxwell, 3
Ili, App. 17 ; Coffin V. Hydraulic Co., Pick. (Mass.) 139; Woodbury v.
136 N. y. 655. Frink, 14 111. 379.
< Hartley v. Corboy, 150 Pa. St. 23; 8 vigus v. O'Bannon, 118 111' 348;
Conable v. Keeney, 61 Hun, 634; Beardstown v. Virginia, etc., 76 111.
Franklin v. Baker, 48 Ohio St. 296; 34; Kelly v. Owens (Cal., 1893), 30
Hagan v. Insurance Co., 81 Iowa, Pac. Rep. 596.
321 ; Bushnell v. Glessner, 46 Minn. <* Van Horn v. Van Horn (N! J.,
531. 1891), 20 Atl. Rep. 836; Kilbourn V,
5. Western Nat. Bank v. Wood; 10 Latta, 7 Mackey, 80; Dickson v. Ev-
N. Y. S. 81 ; Tome v. Gerlaoh, 18 N. Y. ans, 6 T. R. 57 ; State v. Arnold, IS
388
BUEDEN OF PEOOF, ETC.
[§ 250.
ample, in a prosecution for dealing in liquors, or carrying on
any otiier trade or avocation without a written license where
one is required by statute, the burden of proof is upon the
defendant to show that he has not violated the statute.^
The party making a negative allegation will be compelled
to assume the burden of proof where non-performance or a
negligent performance of duty is alleged, as in actions which
are brought to recover damages for injuries caused by negli-
gence,^ or where an allegation of fraud is made and denied,
ais, for example, in an action by creditors to set aside a con-
veyance made for the purpose of defeating their claims.'
In an action on an insurance policy the burden of proof is
on the defendant company to prove that the insured obtained
it bj' fraud,* or by the suppression of material facts which it
Avas his duty to communicate,' or to show any breach of con-
dition that will defeat a recovery on the policy.*
Ired. (N. C.) 184; AVheat v. State, 6
Mo. 455; State v. Higgins, 13 E. I.
3S0 ; State v. Morrison, 3 Dev. 299 ;
Mehan v. State, 7 Wis. 670.
'Com. V. Zelt, 138 Pa. St. 615;
State V. Kriechbaum(Iowa, 1891), 47
N. W. Rep. 873; State v. Wilson, 39
Mo. App. 114; Flower v. State, 39
Ark. 809 (physician's license) ; Low-
ell V. Payne, 30 La. Ann. 511; Peo-
ple V. Nyce, 34 Hun, 298 (ferry
license); Great W. R. R. Co. v.
Bacon, 30 111. 347 ; People v. Pease,
27 N. Y. 45; Com. v. Curran,, 119
Mass. 206. Contra, Com. v. Locke,
114 Mass. 288. Of. Potter v. Deyo, 19
Wend. 361 ; Bliss v. Brainard, 41 N.
H. 256; 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 79.
'' O'Kane v. Miller, 3 Ind. App. 136 ;
Texas, etc. Co. v. Morin, 66 Tex. 133 ;
Do well V. Guthrie (Mo., 1893), 22 S.
•■ W. Rep. 893. Burden of showing
contributory negligence is on defend-
ant. Denver, etc. Co. V. Ryan (Colo.,
1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 79; Spurrier v.
Front St. Ry. Co., 8 Wash, St. 659;
Fulks V. St. Louis, etc. Co. (Mo.,
1893), 19 S. W. Rep. 818; Merrill v.
Eastern R. Co., 139 Mass. 253;
Omaha v. Ayres, 83 Neb. 375; Water-
man V. Cliicago, etc. Co., 52 N. W.
Rep. 247 ; Railroad Co. v. Owen, 15
S. E. Rep. 853.
SLauer v. Kuder(Ill., 1893), 84 N.
E. Rep. 484 ; Zucker v. Karpeles, 88
Mich. 413; Sewell v. Mead (Iowa,
1892), 52 N. W. Rep. 237; Marsh v.
Cramer (Colo., 1891), 27 Pac. Rep.
169 ; Smith v. Ogilvie (N. Y., 1891),
27 N. E. Rep. 807; Gleason v. Wil-
son, 48 Kan. 500; 29 Pao. Rop. 693;
Probert v. McDonald, 51 N. W. Rep.
213; Martin Brown Co. v. Cooper, 82
Tex. 243 ; Blackshire v. Pettit, 35 W.
Va. 547. Contra, Norton v. Bank,
50 Ark. 59; Bartlett v. Cleavenger,
35 W. Va. 719.
* Ferine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U.
W. (Minn., 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 367.
* Modern Woodman v. Sutton, 38
111. App. 327; Heilman v. Lazarus,
90 N. Y. 672; Tidmarsh t. Wash. F.
& M. Ins. Co., 4 Mason, 439; Murray
V. N. Y. L. Ins. Co.. 85 N. Y. 83d;
Elmer v. Mut. Ben. L. Ass'n, 19 N.
Y. S. 289.
^ Sutherland v. Stand. L. Ins. Co.
(Iowa, 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 453.
§ 250.]
BURDEN OF PEOOF, ETC.
389
Though the burden of proving fraud or undue influence is
cast usually upon the party alleging its existence, yet, where
from the circumstances or the relations of the parties fraud is
presumed, as it is in the case of a sale or a gift to a trustee by
the beneficiary, the burden is shifted and the grantee or donee
will be compelled to prove that the transaction was lona fide
and for a good consideration.^
Where a note is alleged to be usurious and void,^ or without
consideration,' or illegitimacy * or insanity is alleged," or breach
of warranty in an action on contract,^ or the bad reputation
of the plaintiff in an action for libel,' these allegations, though
negative in character, cast the burden of proof upon the party
making them.^
iWhitridge v. Whitridge (Md.,
1892), 24 Atl. Rep. 645; Carter v.
West (Ky., 1892), 19 S. W. Eep, 592;
White V. Johnson (Wash., 1892), 29
Pac. Rep. 932 ; Jackson v. Tatebo, 3
Wash. St. 456; Corrigan v. Peroni,
48 N. J, Eq. 607 ; King v. Jacobson,
58 Hun, 010; Newton v. Newton
(Minn., 1891), 48 N. W. Rep. 450;
Haskins v. Warren, 115 Mass. 514.
2 Holt V. Kirby (Ark., 1893), 21
S. W. Rep. 432 ; White v. Benjamin,
138 N. Y. 623.
^ McKenzie v, Oregon I. Co., 5
Wash. C. C. 500.
* Morris v. Davies, 3 C. & P. 215.
5Hoge V. Fisher, 1 Pet. C. C. 163.
Insanity being pleaded as a matter
of defense in an action ex contractu,
the burden of proof is upon the de-
fendant to show insanity (Young v.
Lamont (Minn., 1893), 57 N. W. Rep.
478; Brown v. Brown, 39 Mich. 793;
Weed V. Life Ins. Co., 70 N. Y. 561 ;
Jarrett v. Jarrett, 11 W. Va. 563 ;
Perkins v. Perkins, 39 N. H. 163;
Wright V. Wright, 139 Mass. 177),
and remains on him, though if by
evidence he shows insanity, then
the party denying the insanity will
be obliged to prove by the weight of
evidence either that the insanity
had ceased to exist or that a lucid
interval had occurred. Wright v.
Wright, supra.
« Piano M. Co. v. Root (N. D.,
1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 924; Cook v.
Tavenier, 41 III. App. C42.
'Lotto V. Dans (Minn., 1893), 52
N. W. Rep. 130.
8 In the following cases the burden
of proof has been held to rest on the
plaintiff: To show breach of a con-
tract or covenant: Western Union T.
Co. V. Bennett, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 558 ;
Landt v. Mayor (Colo., 1893), 31 Pac.
Rep. 624. Damages for negligence :
Richmond, etc, Co. v. While, 88
Ga. 805. Infringement of a patent:
National Harrow Co. v. Hanby, 54
Fed. Rep. 493. Ultra vires, when
ground for a writ of^gito warranto :
EUerman v. Stockyards (N. J., 1893);
23 Atl. Rep. 257. Performance of
contract when performance is de-
nied: Hitchcock V. Davis, 87 Mich.
629. Possession in trespass to try
title: Gunn v. Harris, 88 Ga. 439.
Receipt of money by the defendant
in conversion: Panama R. Co. v.
Johnson, 63 Hun, 629. Notice of a
defect in highway to a city : McGrail
V. Kalamazoo, 94 Mich. 53.
In these cases the burden is on the
390
BUEDJEN OF PEOOF, ETO.
[§ 251.
§ 251. When plaintiff may open and close. — The general
rule beino^ that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, it
follows that he has the right to open and close in most cases.'
This is true though there may be several issues and the plaint-
iff maj' have the burden of proof on only one of them.^ In
actions on contracts either express or implied, where the de-
fendant does not deny the execution or validity of the con-
tract but pleads an affirmative defense such as payment, or
breach of contract by the plaintiff, and where substantial
damages are claimed which the contract has not liquidated,
the plaintiff has the burden of proving damages and the con-
sequent right to open and clos?.^ The rule that the plaintiff
has the right to open and close in cases where the damages
are unliquidated is also invoked in actions in tort. The fact
that the defendant does not plead the general issue, but admits
the cause of action and pleads a defense by way of confession
and avoidance, does not, unless he also admits the amount of
damages which are claimed, deprive the plaintiff of his right
defendant: To show truth (Nelson
V. Wallace, 48 Mo. App. 193) or the
bad- reputation of plaintiff in libel :
Lotto T. Davenport (Minn., 1892), 53
N. W. Rep. 130. Justification in as-
sault: Jennison v. Mosely (Miss.,
1892), 10 S. Rep. 582. Prior use or
want of invention in patent cases :
Hunt Bros. v. Cassidy, 7 U. S. App.
434; Anderson v. Monroe, 55 Fed.
Rep. 596. Exemption of homestead :
Kolsky V. Loveman (Ala., 1892), 12
S. Rep. 720; Wagner V. Olson (N. D.,
1893), 54 N. W.,Rep. 286; Robertson
V. Robertson (Ky., 1893), 20 S. W.
Rep. 543. Condonation in divorce
proceeding: McConnell v. McCon-
nell (iSTeb., 1393), 55 N. W. Rep. 292.
A corporation must show its title in
quo warranto: Ginterraan v. People
(111., 1892), 28 N. W. Rep. 1067.
Abandonment of easement on party
alleging it: Henessy v. Murdock,
137 N. Y. 317. Freedom from negli-
gence on carrier: Central R. & B. Co,
V. Hossalkus (Ga., 1893), 17 S. E.
Rep. 838.
1 Railway Co. v. Rhea, 44 Ark.
258, 364; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry.
Co. V. Taylor (Ark., 1893), 20 S. W.
Rep. 1083 ; Felts v. Clapper, 69 Hun,
373.
2Sliaw V. Barnhart, 17 Ind. 188;
Bertrand v. Taylor, 32 Ark. 470;
Auerbach y. Peetsch, 18 N. Y. S.
453 ; Johnson v. Maxwell, 87 N. C.
18.
SThompsoti on Trials, § 332;
Stirnes v. Schofield (Ind., 1892), 31
N. E. Rep. 480; Whitesides v. Hunt,
97 Ind. 191; Mizer v. Bristol, 30 Neb.
138; Penhryn Slate Co. v. Meyer, 8
Daly (N. Y.), 61 ; Graham v. Gautier,
•21 Tex. 113; Mercer v. Whall, 5 Ad.
& El. (N. S.) 447; Bates v. Farelet,
89 Mo. 131 ; Hurley v; Sullivan, 137
Mass. 86; Dahlman v. Hammel, 45
Wis. 466; McBee v. Bowmaii, 89
Tenn. 132; Mathews v. Farnies, 91
Ala. 157.
§ 251.J
BUEDEN OF PEOOF, ETC.
391
trt open and close.^ Thus, in an action to recover for slander
or libel, where the defendant admits that he uttered the libel-
ous or slanderous language which is alleged, but pleads the
truth in justification, or that the statements were privileged,
he is not entitled to the right to open and close, for the bur-
den of proving malice and the amount of damages, if any, is
still on the plaintiff.^
Cases occur which do not arrange themselves under the
head of actions in contract or in tort, but in which the mov-
ing party applies merely to set aside some prior judicial or
other official determination or action, or objects to that which
is proposed or anticipated. The rule here invoked is that, as
the burden of proof is on him who would change the existing
condition of things, the applicant or party protesting will
therefore have the right to open and close. Thus, a con-
testant of an election,* interpleading claimants in attachment,*
or a party who files objections to the settlement of an exec-
utor,'' or excepts to the report of an auditor,^ or who applies
for a supersedeas ' or a license,' has the right to open and
close.'
1 StirnesT. Sdiofield(Ind.. 1892), 31
N. E. Rep. 411 ; Young v. Highland,
9Gratt. (Va.) 16; Mercer v. Whall,
5 Ad. & El. (N. S.) 447; St. Louis, I.
M. etc. Go. Y. Taylor (Ark., 1S9;J), 20
S. W. Rep. 1083 ; Beatty v. Hatcher,
13 Ohio St. 115; StiUwell v. Archer,
18 N. Y. S. 888; Cunningham v.
Gallegher, 61 Wis. 170; Aurora v.
Cobb, 21 Ind. 493; Opdyke v. Weed,
18 Abb. Pr. 223.
2 Tallmadge v. Press, 14 N. Y. S.
331 ; Burkh^lter v. Coward, 16 S. C.
435 ; Hecker v. Hopkins, 16 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) 301; Vifquain v. Finch, 15
Neb. 505 ; Shulse v. McWIUiams, 104
Ind. 512; Louisville C. Jour. v.
Weaver {Ky., 1892), 17 S. W. Rep.
1018; 1 Thompson on Trials, § 230,
n. 3. The rule given In the text is
applicable where the defendant
pleads son ansault demesne to an al-
legation of assault and battery. 1
Thompson on Trials, § 230; Young
V. Highland, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 16; Sej--
mourv. Baily, 76 Ga. 338; Johnson
V. Josephs, 75 Me. 544.
3 Price 'v. Archuleta (Colo., 1892),
29 Pac. Rep. 460.
< Sanger v. Flow, 48 Fed. Rep.
153; 4 U. S. App. 33. Of. Central
R. & B. Co. V. Cons. & Inv. Co., 33
S. C. 319; 33 id. 599.
5 Clay V. Robinson, 7 W. Va. 350.
6 Arthur v. Gordon, 67 Ga. 220.
' Pearsall v. McCartney, 28 Ala.
110.
8 Hill V. Perry, 82 Ind. 128.
^ See, also, in attachment, Dolan
V. Armstrong, 35 Neb. 339 ; Jones v.
Swank (Minn., 1893), 53 N. W. Rep.
634. In Huntington v. Conkey, 33
Barb. (N. Y.) 318, the court tWis
sums up the rules bearing on the
right to open and close : " First. The
plaintiff in all cases where damages
are unliquidated has the right to
open and close. Second, Whenever
392
BUEDEN OF PROOF, ETC,
[§ 352.
§ 252. When defendant may open and close. — In all cases
where the burden of proof is on the defendant he has the right
to open and close. This usually occurs where he admits all
the facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action is based,
including the amount of damages claimed, whether liquidated
or not,i and pleads paj'ment,^ usury,' want of consideration,*
the bar of the statute of limitations,^ or some other defense in
the nature of a justification or discharge.^
The defendant who seeks to open and close cannot claim to
do so upon a sham plea or on one entirely unsupported by any
evidence,' but must show by his pleadings that he has the right
to do so affirmatively and clearly, for the court will not examine
all the pleadings in the case in order to ascertain where that
right lies.* But the denial of unnecessarj'^ averments which
are in the complaint which the plaintiff would not be called
he has anything to prove on the
question of damages or otherwise he
may begin. Third. In cases where
the damages are liquidated or de-
pend on mere calculation, the party
holding the affirmative may begin.
Fourth. The affirmative in such case
means the affirmative in substance,
not in form, and on the whole rec-
ord. Fifth. The denial of the right
to begin to the party entitled to and
claiming it is reversible error unless
the court can see clearly that no in-
jury or injustice resulted from the
erroneous decision."
•Updyke v. Weed, 18 Abb. Pr.
223.
"Truesdell v. Hoyle, 39 111. App.
582; Knapp v. Runals, 37 Wis. 185.
aHoxey v. Green, 37 How. Pr. 97;
Sammons V. Hawver, 25 W. Va.
fi78: Huntington v. Kinkey, 33 Barb.
(N. Y.) 218; Suter v. Bank, 35 Neb.
873.
*'MoShane v. Braender, 66 How.
Pr. (N. Y.) 294; Brown v. Tausick,
20 N, Y. S. 369.
»Maye v. Friedman, 69 N. Y. 608;
Payne v. Hathaway, 3 Vt. 312.
6 Lindley v. Sullivan (Ind., 1893),
33 N. E. Rep. 361 ; East Tenn. etc.
Co. V. Fleetwood (Ga., 1893), lo S. E.
Rep, 778; Love v. Dickinson, 85 N.
C. 5; Auerbach v. Peetsch, 18 N. Y.
S. 452; Donahoe v. Rich, 2 Ind. App.
540; List v. Kortpeter, 26 Ind. 27;
Lafayette Bank v. Metcalf, 29 Mo.
App. 384; Chicago* etc. Co. v. Bryan,
90 111. 126; Rigdon v. Jordan, 81 Ga.
668 ; Johnson v. Bradslreet,, 81 Ga.
425; Page v. Carter, 8 B. Mon. 192;
Pingree v. Puckett, 35 S. C. 178;
Seymour v. Baily, 76 Ga. 338;
Maurice v. Warden, 54 Md. 333. The
defendant must admit all of plaint-
iff's cause of action. A plea which
is evasive or doubtful (Seymour v.
Baily, 76 Ga. 338 ; Comp. v. Brown,
48. Ind. 575). or which alleges a
modification of the cause of action
(McConnell v. Kitchens, 20 S. C. 430),
or which denies the alleged value
of the subject-matter (Saunders v.
Bridges, '67 Tex. 93), will not suffice.
' Vanzant v. Jones, 3 Dana (Ky.),
464 ; B.iehm v. Lies, 18 N. Y. S. 577.
8 Claflin V. Baer, 38 Hun (N. Y.),
204.
§ 253.] BDEDEN OP PEOOF, ETC. 393
upon to prove will not deprive the defendant of his right to
open and close.'
To obtain the right to open and close, the defendant's ad-
mission of the plaintiff's cause of action must be seasonably
made, usually before trial and by the pleadings.^ Although
this question was the subject of much discussion in the earlier
cases, it is now well settled that whenever the plaintiff has
anything to prove on the question of damages he has also the
right to begin.* But where the damages are liquidated, as in
the case of an action brought on a promissory note,* bill of
exchange,' order for the payment of money ^ or insurance
policy,' the defendant who admits the cause of action has the
right to open and close, for on him the law casts the burden
of proving any affirmative defense which he may urge.
§ 253. Right to open and close in special proceedings. —
In special proceedings the burden of proof and the correlated
right to open and close are his " who seeks to alter the exist-
ing state of things." * Thus, in proceedings to probate a will
the proponent has the right to open and close in the first in-
stance,* though when the validity of the will is prima facie
established by probate, the party who attacks it subsequently,
whether in the same court or elsewhere, has the right to open
and close, for the reason that he seeks to alter the status quo}'^
The petitioner in a proceeding to condemn land for public
purposes by virtue of the exercise of the right of eminent do-
main, or to assess damages for the taking thereof, has gen-
1 Murray v. N. Y. L. Ina. Co., 85 «ElweU v. Chamberlain, 31 N. Y.
N. Y. 238. 611.
SMitebell v. Fowler, 21 S. C. 398; ■> Viele v. Insurance Co., 26 -Iowa,
Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 10: Brennan v. Security L. Ins. Co.,
(Mass.) 40. ' 4 Daly (N. Y.), 296.
3 Smith, J., in Huntington v. » Thompson on Ti-ials, § 289. See
Conkey, 32 Barb. 218 ; Mercer v. ante, § 348.
Whall, 9 Jur. 576. 9 Norton v. Paxton, 110 Mo. 456
^Crabtree V. Atchison (Ky., 1893), Kennedy v. Upshaw, 66 Tex. 442
20 S. W. Rep. 260; Ayrault v. Perkins v. Perkins, 39 N. H. 163
Chamberlain, 33 Barb. 229; Bowen Harrison v. Bishop, 131 Ind. 161
V. Spears, 20 Ind. 146; Brown v. Wilbur v. Wilbur, 129 III. 393; Hardy
Tausick, 20 N. Y. S. 369; Harvey v. v. Merrill, 56 N. H. 227.
EUithorpe, 26 111. 418; Hudson v. '"In re Simcox, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. E.
Wetherington, 79 N. C. 3. 545.
s List V. Kortpeter, 26 Ind. 27.
394 BDEDEN OF PROOF, ETC. [§ 254.
orally the right to open and close; for the law casts on him
the burden of showing by evidence the necessity for the tak-
ing and the value of the property appropriated.' The con-
trary is supported by some cases,^ and generally the owner
will have the right in any appellate proceeding to review the
award.'
The burden of proof in criminal cases is, as we have seen,
upon the prosecution, and for this reason, and because the ac-
cused is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty, ihe
right to open and close belongs to the state irrespective of the
nature of the defense, and even where the accused offers no
evidence in his own behalf.*
§ 2bi. The right to open and close — When discretionary.
Though a substantial unanimity of opinion exists that the
right to open and close belongs to the party on whom is oast
the burden of proof, the authorities are not harmonious upon
the question whether a denial of the right is ground for a new
trial. Many cases sustain the rule that the matter is wholh'
within the discretion of the trial court, being a matter of prac-
tice over which its jurisdiction is final and exclusive.^ But this
general rule is sometimes qualified by the proviso that it is
only applicable where a denial of the privilege has not re-
sulted in prejudice, injustice or unfairness to the party.* On
the other hand, it is held that the denial of the right to open
and close is a substantial error. The right is not a mere privi-
lege, and discretionary, but absolute, and a refusal to permit
its exercise cannot be disregarded on a motion for a new trial
or on appeal.' A statute granting the right to open and close
1 Thompson on Trials, § 347; Gulf, nagin v. State, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 529;
etc. Co. V. Ross {Tex., 1891), 16 S. W. State v. Millican, 15 La. Ann. 557.
Rep. 536 ; Com'rs v. Trustees, 107 See g 249.
111. 489; Neff v. Cincinnati, 32 Ohio 'Gran v. Spangenberg (Minn.,
St. 215; Spring Valley, etc. Co. v. 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 933; Cothran
Driniihouse, 93 Cal. 528. v. Forsyth, 68 Ga. 560; Lancaster v.
2 Dallas V. Chenault (Tex., 1891), Collins, 115 U. S. 223; Wade v.
10 S. W. Rep. 173; Burt v. Wiggles- Scott, 7 Mo. 509; Fry v. Bennett, 28
worth, 117 Mass. 302; Springfield R. N. Y. 334; Corastock v. Hadlyme, 8
Co. V. Rhea, 44 Ark. 258. Conn. 254; 8 id. 296.
3 Indiana, etc. Co. v. Cook, 103 « Carpenter v. Bank, 119 111. 853.
Ind. 113; Omaha, etc. Co. V. Walker, 'Porter v. Still, 03 Miss. 357;
17 Neb. 433. Royal Ins. Co.' v. Schuring, 87 Ky.
* Thompson on Trials, §243; Jar- 410; 9 S. W. Rep. 242; Millard v.
254.]
BURDEN OF PROOF, ETC.
395
is, of course, mandatory;' but the party claiming it sliould
do so promptly before any material progress has been made
in the trial of the case.^
Thorn, 56 N. Y. 403; Elder v. Oliver,
30 Mo. App. 575; Auerbach v.
Peetsoh, 18 N. Y. S. 452; Oolwell
V. Brovver, 75 111. 516; Creston v.
Walker, 26 Iowa, 205; Ashing v.
can, 35 S. C. 178; Thooapson oa
Trials, § 326.
iBertody v. Ison, 69 Ga. 317; HefE-
ron V. State, 8 Fla. 73.
2McKibbon v. Folds, 38 Ga. 835;
Miles, 16 Ind. 829; Addison v. Dun- Mason v, Seitz, 36 Ind. 516.
CHAPTER XX.
STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
§ 261. Origin and nature of the stat-
ute.
203. Agreements relating to inter-
ests in land.
263. Partition of real property.
264. Trusts in real and personal
estate.
265. Surrender or assignment of
leases.
266. Contracts required to be in
writing.
§ 267. Articles of partnership.
268. Form and character of the
writing.
369. Wills required to be evidenced
in writing.
370. Agreements not within the
statute of frauds which
must be evidenced by writ-
ings.
§ 261. Origin and nature of the statute. — The statute of
frauds and perjuries which was passed in England in the
twenty-nintli year of Charles II. (1678), and which has been
substantially re-enacted in every state of the American Union,
was the means of introducing into the law of evidence a new
mode of proof that renders its consideration of great impor-
tance. The spread of commerce and the complexity of social
affairs had rendered necessary, while the increased employ-
ment of writing had made possible, the use of documentary
evidence in a large class of cases in which it had not before
been employed. The object of the statute is to prevent fraud.
This, it is conceived, will be most effectually accomplished by
requiring that certain transactions shall be evidenced in writ-
ing, which is then presumed to be the best evidence of the
intention of the parties. Accordingl}", where it is alleged that
any one of the various classes of transactions or Contracts which
are within the statute have been made, a writing evidencing
it must be produced or the party claiming the execution of
the contract will be denied a legal remedy. The various stat-
utes of frauds in the several states differ in minor points,
while a substantial similarity exists among all of them.
Though their consideration in detail is impossible in this work,
attention may be called to some of their more salient features.
§ 2G2.J STATUTE OF FEAUDS. 397
§ 263. Agreements relating to interests in land. — By the
statute all contracts to convey land and all conveyances of land
or of any interest in land, freehold or less than freehold, future
or iinmediate, vested or contingent, except leases for three
years or less, are required to be in writing. In construing
this provision .the main difficulty has been to ascertain the
meaning of the words "land or an interest therein," and to
ascertain what was conveyed or sold, so as to render a writing
necessar}^ An agreement to convey,' or to create an easement,'^
or a license to go upon land,' or to relinquish an interest in
land,* or to buy lands jointly with another,' or to refrain from
bidding at an auction sale of land," or to take away a certain
amount of bark yearly from trees,' is within the statute and
must be evidenced in writing. On the other hand it has been
held that an agreement between adjacent owners to establish
boundaries,' or a partnership settlement by which land is con-
veyed,^ or a partnership formed to deal in land,'" may be
shown by parol evidence.
Parol contracts for the sale of land will be valid and en-
forceable in equity where there has been a partial perform-
ance by the party seeking the enforcement of the contract,
either by his payment of the consideration and going into
possession of the land or by making valuable improvements
thereon, or by both." Upon the question whether a sale of
' Hayes v. Fine, 91 Cal. 391. o Murrell v. Mandlebaum (Tex.), 19
^Clanton v. Scruggs (Ala., 1893), S. W. Rep. 880.
10 S. Rep. 757; May v. Prendergast, '"Speyer v. Desjardins (III., 1893),
13 Pa. Co. Ot. R. 330. 33 N. E. Rep. 283; Fountain v. Men-
3 Cook V. Stearns, 11 Mass. 533. ard (Minn., 1893), 55 N. W. Rep.
As respects the necessity for writing 601; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479;
to convey lands prior to the statute, Case v. Seger, 4 Wash. St. 493 ;
seeTiedemanon R. P., §783. Sleven v. Wallace, 64 Hun, 288;
^Littell V. Jones (Ark., 1893), 19 Clarke v. McAuliffe, 81 Wis. 244.
S. W. Rep. 497. " Barnes v. Bost. etc. Co., 130 Mass.
6 Morton v. Nelson (III., 1S93), 33 388; Hanlon v. Wilson, 10 Neb. 138;
N. E. Rep. 916. Marshall v. Peck, 91 111. 187; Wal-
6Roughton V. Rawllngs, 88 Ga. lace v. Rappleyea, 103 id. 339; Ford
819. V. Finney, 35 Ga. 358 ; Cole v. Cole,
'Thompson v. Poor, 67 Hun, 653. 41 Md. 301; Sovvry v. Buffington, 6
8 Archer v. Helm (Miss., 1893), 11 W. Va. 349; Reynolds v. Reynolds,
S. Rep. 3; Lecomte v. Tondorize, 83 45 Mo. App. 633; Smith v. Arthur,
Tex. 208; Cavanaugh v. Jackson, 91 110 N. C. 400; Moulton v. Harris, 91
Cal. 580, Cal. 430 ; St. Louis E. Co. v. Graham,
398 STATUTE OF FRAUDS. f§ 263.
growing timber or crops must be evidenced by a writing the
decisions are inharmonious. The English cases hold that if
an immediate removal and severance by the vendor are con-
templated no writing is requisite, as the transaction can and
ought to be deemed a sale of goods alone. ^ The American
courts hold that "standing trees are a part of the inheritance,
and can only become personalty by actual severance or b}'^
severance in contemplation of law as the effect of a proper
instrument in writing."- If in the sale of the timber or of
growing crops or fruits a severance and delivery of the trees
or crops as chattels by the vendor are not contemplated, but
the vendor is given, either expressly or by implication, a license
to go on the land and cut and receive them, then it js only
reasonable to require that the contract conferring the license
or quasi-lesLse must be evidenced by a writing,' where its du-
ration exceeds the term for which a valid oral lease can be
made.
§ 263. Partition of real property. — Whether a partition
among co-tenants may be effected and proved by parol is a
question upon which considerable variance exists among the
authorities. Prior to the enactment of the statute of frauds
partition among coparceners and tenants in common of cor-
poreal hereditaments might have been made by parol coupled
with livery of seizin in severalty. According to the English
cases and the early American decisions, a voluntary partition
55 Ark. 294; Guthrie v. Anderson, Smith v. Surman, 9 B. & O. 561;
48 Kan. 381 ; Frank v. Riggs, 93 Ala. "Watts v. Bruce, 10 B. & 0. 446; Mar-
253; Larsen v. Johnson, 78 Wis. 300. shall v. Green, 33 L. T. Rep. (N. S.)
" Every day's experience more fully 404 ; Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. & C. 836 ;
demonstrates tliat the statute was Bostwick v. Leech, 3 Bay (Conn.),
founded in wisdom and absolutely 476 ; Warwick v. Bruce, 2 M. & S.
necessary to preserve the titles to 205.
real property from the chances, the ^Tiedeman on Real Prop., § 799;
uncertainty and the fraud attending Triill v. Fisher, 28 Me. 548 ; Green v.
the admission of parol testimony. Armstrong, 1 Denio, 550; McGregor
When courts of equity have relaxed v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 117; Vorebeck v.
the rigid requirements of the statute, Roe, 50 Barb. 305; Buck v. Pick-
it has always been for the purpose well, 27 Vt. 104; Hirth v. Graham
of hindering the statute made to (Ohio, 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 90; De-
prevent frauds from becoming the laney v. Root, 99 Mass. 548 ; Poor v.
instrument of fraud." Purcell v. Oakman, 154 Mass. 316.
Miner, 4 Wall. 517. axiedeman on Real Prop., §799)
iTiedeman on Real Prop., §799; 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 371.
§ 264.] STATUTE OF FEATJDS. 309
of land VA'as considered to be a conveyance which, coming
under the operation of the statute of frauds, must necessarily
be in writing; and the courts demanded, therefore, that a
party alleging the fact of a partition must prove that fact by
evidence in writing.' But the contrary proposition, that a
parol partition is valid where it is carried out and is followed
by an actual and exclusive possession of the parcels in sever-
alty, is supported by the more recent cases. The exclusive
adverse possession in severalty, if it is continued long enough
to bring the case within the statute of limitation, or if it is
coupled with the making of extensi-ve improvements by one
of the former co-tenants oh the portion which has been set
out to him in severalty, would be sufficient in equity or law
to take the case out of the statute of frauds and to dispense
with written evidence.^ In the New England States the pro-
prietors of common lands could make partition by an oral vote
and without actual possession in severalty. No writing was
required to evidence a title arising under such a partition.^
§ 264r. Trusts in real and personal estate. — Prior to the
enactment, of the statute of frauds, oral evidence was admis-
sible to prove an express trust in real property. By that stat-
ute it is required that all express declarations of trusts in land
shall be manifested and proved by a writing signed by the
party creating the trust. The statute covers all express trusts ; *
'Co. Lit. 187a; 2 Cruise, 384; Pipes v. Buckiier, 51 Miss. 848 ; John-
Chenery v. Dole, 39 Me. 164 ; Lie- son v. Johnson, 65 Tex. 87 ; McCon-
Pherson v. Seguine, a Dev. (N. C.) nell v. Carey, 48 Pa. St. 430; Dock-
154; Den v. Longstreet, 18 N. J. L. terman v. Eider, 37 Wkly. Law Bui.
414; Porter v. Perkins, 5 Mass. 235; 195; Boiling v. Teel, 76 Va. 487;
Medlin V. Steele, 75 N. C. 154: Dow Mellon v. Eeed, 114 Pa. St. 647;
V. Jewell, 18 K H. 380: Oratz v. Gates v. Salmon, 46 Cal. 461; Mc-
Gratz, 4 Rawle (Pa.), 411; Jones v. Mahan v. McMahan, 13 Pa. St. 376;
Reeves, 6 Rich. (S. C.) 133; Wright Tate v. Fashee, 117 Ind. 332; Sanger
V. Cane, 18 La. Ann. 579; Craig v. v. Merritt, 131 N. Y. 614; Rountree
Taylor, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 459; Tiede- v. Lane, 33 S. C. 160.
man on Real Prop., § 260. spolger v. Mitchell, 3 Pick. (Mass.)
2Tiedeman on Real Prop., § 260; 396; Coburn v. Ellen wood, 4 N. H.
Meacham v. Meacham (Tenn., 1893), 09; Corbett v. Norcross, 35 id. 99;
19 S. W. Rep. 757 ; Bruce v. Osgood, Springfield v. Miller, 13 Mass. 415.
113 Ind. 360; Brown v. Wheeler, 17 *Tiedeman on Eq., § 296; Collar
Conn. 345; Bompart v. Roderman, v. Collar, 88 Mich. 507; 49 N. W.
24 Mo. 385; Shepard v. Rinks, 78 111. Rep. 507; In re Groome, 94 Cal. 69;
188; Compton v. Mathews, 3 La. 128; 29 Pao. Rep. 487; Wolford v. Farn-
400
STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
[§ 264.
but implied, resulting and constructive trusts are excepted
either expressly or by implication,' and may be proved by
parol. It is never necessary that the express trust should be cre-
ated in writing, for, as the writing is only required for proof, it
ma}' operate as an admission of the existence of the trust.''
The evidence must be clear,^ for if the language of the writing
is uncertain, vague or fragmentary, parol evidence will not be
received to supply the omissions.* Personal or business cor-
respondence, indorsements and admissions by parties in plead-
ings have been held sufficient as written proof of an express
trust.' Trusts in personal propert}'^ are not within the statute
of frauds and may be proven by parol evidence without the
introduction of any memorandum or other writing whatever.*
ham, 44 Minn. .159; Bragg v. Paulk, ^McClellan v. McClellan, 65 Me.
42 Me. C03; Hall v. Young, 37 N. H. 500; Trapnall v. Brown, 19 Ark. 48;
134; Daily v. Kinsler, 31 Neb. 340; Moran v. Hayes, 1 Johns. Ch. 339;
Pinney v. Fellows, 15 Vt. 535 ; Pat-
ton V. Beecher, 62 Ala. 579 ; Spies v.
Price, 91 Aia. 166; Watson v. Pinck-
ney, 18 N. Y. S. 790; Faxon v.
Folvey, 110 Mass. 393; Packard v.
Putnam, 57 N. H. 43; Gibson v.
Phipard v. Phipard, 55 Hun, 433;
Orleans v. Chatham, 2 Pick. 29;
Guion V. Williams, 7 N. Y. S. 786;
Cornelius v. Smith, 55 Mo. 528; Pin-
ney V. Fellows, 15 Vt. 535,
'Rogers v. Rogers, 87 Mo. 257;
Foote, 40 Miss. 783; Wadd v. Hazle- Hoover v. Hoover, 129 Pa. St. 201;
ton, 137 N. Y. 213; Tollarson v. 19 Atl. Rep. 854.
Blackstock, 11 S. Rep. 384 (Ala., ^Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt, 1
1893); Renz v. Stoll, 94 Micb. 377; Johns. Ch. 373; Chad wick v. Per-
Hamilton v. Buchanan (N. C, 1893), kins, 3 Me. 399; Russell v. Svvitzer,
17 S. E. Rep. 159 ; Kinsey V. Bennett 63 Ga. 711; Abell v. Radcliffe, 13
(8. C, 1893), 15 id. 965. Johns. 297; Chase v. Stockett (Md.,
' Holland v. Farthing (Tex., 1893), 1890), 19 Atl. Rep. 761.
21 S. W. Rep. 67; Franceston v.
Deering. 41 N. H. 443 ; Gee v. Gee^ 33
Miss. 190; Meichon v. Duer, 40 N. J.
Eq. 333; Brown v. Case, 28 S. C.
5 McCandless v. Warner, 26 W. Va.
754; Fisher v. Fields, 10 Johns. 495;
Barron v. Barron, 24 Vt. 375 ; Hell-
man v. Mc Williams, 70 Cal. 449;
251; Burdette v. May, lOO Mo. 13; Moore v. Pickett, 63 111. 138; Bates
Seller V. Mohn, 37 W. Va. 507; Rice v. Hurd, 65 Me. 180; Johnson v.
v. Pennypacker, 5 Del. Ch. 33; Delaney, 35 Tex. 42; Loring v,
Heneke v. Floring, 114 111. 554; Palmer, 118 U. S. 321 ; Macy v. Will-
Price V. Kane, 112 Mo. 413;Larmon iams, 55 Hun, 489; Weaver v. Emi-
V. Knight, 140 III. 333; 39 N. E. grant, etc. Co., 17 Abb. N. C. 82. See
Rep. 1116; Hudson v. Wight, 17 Tiedeman on Real Property, S§ 506.
R. I. 519; Curd v. Williams (Ky., 507, where the subject Is treated in
1892), 18 S. W. Rep. 634; Sasser v. full.
Sasser, 73 Ga. 375. For further cita- « Conn. River Bank v. Albee, 64
tions see Tiedeman on Real Prop., Vt. 571 ; Chace v. Chace, 130 Mass.
§ 507. 128; Maffitt's Adm'r v, Eeynd, 69
§ 265.] STATUTE OF FKATTDS. 401
§ 265. Surrender or assignment of leases.— It is also
generally provided by the statute of frauds that no leases or
other interests in lands of any sort, save in copyhold lands^
can be assigned, granted or surrendered except in writing
signed by the party .^ The effect of the statute is to abrogate
the common-law rule that leases for life or years could be
surrendered by parol, and such surrender or the assignment
of such interests must now be evidenced in writing under the
statute.^ The common law, prior to the statute, proceeding
upon the principle that estates in incorporeal hereditaments,
as easements and estates less than freehold, depended for
their validity upon a written grant and not upon feoffment
and livery of seizin, recognized the rule that such interests
might be surrendered by the destruction of the deed or other
writing by which they were created. The assimilation under
the statute of the proof which is required to evidence incor-
poreal and corporeal interests should not, however, be con-
strued to render the cancellation of a deed conveying a cor-
poreal estate equivalent to a surrender of the same. The
deed, properly recorded, is but evidence of a transfer of title,
and a conveyance under seal of a similar character is required
under the statute to evidence the retransfer or surrender of
the vested interest.' But the redelivery to the grantor of
an unrecorded deed by which no title has passed might, under
certain peculiar and very exceptional circumstances, operate
as a reconveyance, working an estoppel on the grantee, when
the interests of third persons had become vested in the land.*
Pa. St. 380 ; Gadsden v. Whaley, 14 Miller, 35 Pa. St. 481 ; Breher v.
S. C. 210; Roch v. George's Adm'r Reese,' 17 111. App. 545.
(Ky., 1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 1039
Davis V. Coburn, 128 Mass. 377
Baton V. Cook, 35 N. J. Eq. 55
2 McClelland v. Rush, 11 Pa. Co.
Ct. R. 188; Nally v. Reading, 107
Mo. 150; 17 S. W. Rep. 978; State v.
Silvey v. Hodgdon, 52 Cal. 363; Ray Ervien (N. J., 1888), 13 Atl. Rep. 136.
V. Simmons, 11 R. I. 366; Hawkins 3 §263.
V. Gardiner, 3 Sm. & Gif. 441; Hon n Greenl. on Ev., § 365, citing
V. Hon, 70 Ind. 135. Farrar v. Farrar, 4 N. H. 191; Com.
1 Chicago Attachment Co. v. Davis v. Dudley, 10 Mass. 403 ; Hobbrook
<I11., 1893), 38 N. E. Rep. 859. If a v. Tnrrell, 9 Pick. 105 Upon the
lease is under seal the surrender question of the necessity for the use
must also be under seal. Jackson v. of a sealed instrument to pass a
Gardner, 8 Johns. 404; Kiester v. freehold, see Tiedeman on Real
Property, § 783.
26
402 STATUTE OF FKAUDS. [§§ 266, 267.
§ 266. Contracts required to be in writing.^ The statute
of frauds also requires that every contract by an executor or
administrator to answer out of his own estate, all promises to
answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person,
agreements in consideration of marriage, contracts not to be
performed within a year, and contracts for the sale of goods
not exceeding in value the sum of £10 or $50, must be evi-
denced by a writing signed by the party to be charged or his
agent.' In the case of a sale of goods a writing is not required
where the buyer has received part of the goods or has paid
earnest-money.^
§ 267. Articles of partnership. — It is not necessary that
a contract of partnership or an assignment of a share therein
should be evidenced in writing.^ If the existence of the part-
nership is not to commence within one year,* or if its dura-
tion is to be more than one year,^ the transaction must be in
writing under the statute. But a part performance of an oral
contract of partnership is sufficient to take it out of the stat-
ute.^ A partnership formed to carry on the business of buy-
ing and selling land need not, according to the current of the
decided cases, be proved by a writing,^ though it seems that
where the partners contribute as their shares of the partner-
ship fund lands held by them individually, or as tenants in
common, a writing is necessary as evidence of what amounts
to a conveyance of lands.^
"Where real estate is purchased and used for partnership
purposes, being paid for with the money of the lirm, it becomes
partnership property. Such a transaction need not be evi-
denced by a writing signed by all the partners, for if the con-
U Greenl. onEv., §267. Snyder v. Wolford, 38 Minn. 175;
2 3 Kent's Com. 493-495 ; 1 Greenl. Pennypacker v. Leary, 65 Iowa, 230 ;
onEc, §267. Knott v. Knott, 6 Oreg. 142; Bun-
= Buckner v. Ries, 34 N, Y. 344; nell v. Taintor, 4 Conn. 568; Hunter
Jack V. Clemens, 41 Iowa, 95; Jordan v. Whitehead, 42 Mo. 524; Carr v.
V. Miller, 75 Va. 442; Buffium v. Gravitt, 54 Mich. 540. Contra, Gantt
BufEum, 49 Me. 108. v. Gantt, 6 "La. Ann. 667 ; Smith v.
« Williams v. Jones, 5 B. & C. 108. Burcham, 3 Sumn. (U. S.) 485.
5 Morris v. Peckham, 51 Conn. 138. SLarkins v. Rhodes, 5 Port. (Ala.)
"Yates V. Fraser, 6 111. App. 229; 195; Clancy v, Cranie, 2 Dev. Eq.
Huntley v. Huntley, 114 IT. S. 894. (N. C.) 363.
'Holmes v. McCray, 51 Ind. 358;
§ 268.] STATUTE OF FEAUDS. 403
tract was signed by and the title taken in the name of one,
he will be regarded as a trustee for his associates.'
§268. Form and character of the writing. — No particu-
lar form is required for any writing evidencing a contract
necessary under the statute, and several incomplete or frag-
mentary documents may be sufficient if on being construed
together the existence of the contract can be ascertained with
reasonable certainty. But parol evidence is inadmissible to
supply words which have been omitted,^ though it may be re-
ceived to show that a consideration passed where none is ex-
pressed in the writing.' The statutory requirement is that the
writing should be signed, not by both the parties, but " by the
party to be charged " alone. The plaintiff who is seeking to
enforce his right need not therefore have signed the writing
which he seeks to use as evidence. The position of the signa-
ture is immaterial. The printed name of the vendor in a bill
will suffice if the name of the vendee and the items are in
writing.* Except in the case of the execution of a conveyance
of land, a writing signed by an agent or attorney will not be
invalidated because his authority was created by parol. So an
agent vaay be verbally authorized to enter into a written con-
tract for the sale of land belonging to his principal.^ But an
authority to execute a deed or instrument under seal must have
been created b}'' a deed, and no writing not under seal will be
received as evidence of the existence of such an authority.*
An auctioneer immediately after the descent of the hammer
1 Bryant v. Hunter, 6 Bush (Ky.), 2 2 Kent's Com. 511 ; 1 Greenl. on
75; Hogle v. Lowe, 12 Nev. 386; Ev., § 368.
Rank v. Grote, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 'Packard v. Richardson, 17 Mass.
X75; Dewey v. Dewey, 35 Vt. 555; 133; Drake v. Seaman, 97 N. Y. 330.
Martin v. Morris, 62 Wis. 418 ; Cf. Hayes v. Jackson, 37 Cent. L. J.
Brooke v. Washington, 8 Gratt. (Vii.) 298.
248; Cilley v. Huse, 40 N. H. 358; n Greenl. on Ev., § 368.
Campbell v. Campbell, 80 N. J. Eq. * Dickerman v. Aston, 21 Minn.
415; Tillinghast v. Champlin, 4 R. I. 538; Warrall v. Munn, 5 N. Y. 329;
173; Jones v. Smith, 31 S. C. 527; Moody v. Smith, 70 N. Y. 598 ; Riley
Hardy v. Norfolk Mfg. Co.,80Va. v. Minor, 29 Mo. 439; Wharter v.
404; Kimberly v. Arms, 139 U. S. McMahan, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 386;
512; Paige v. Paige, 71 Iowa, 318; Rottman v. Wasson, 5 Kan. 552;
Tenny v. Simpson, 37 Kan. 353; Long v. Hartwell, 34 N. J. L. 116.
Divine v. Mitchum, 4 B. Mon, (Ky.) « Wheeler v. Nevins, 34 Me. 54;
488. Preston v. Hall, 23 Gratt. (Va.) 600 ;
404 STATUTE OF FEAUDS. [§ 269.
begins to act as agent for the buyer, and his signature or
memorandum in any transaction, whether concerning real or
personal property, will bind both parties as a note in writing
under the statute.^
§ 269. Wills required to be evidenced in writing.— By
the fifth section of the statute of frauds it was prescribed that
all devises of lands or tenements must be in writing, signed
by the person devising or by some one in his presence and by
his express direction, and they should be attested and sub-
scribed in his presence by three or four witnesses. Before
the Yictorian statute of wills,^ testaments disposing of per-
sonal property only were valid if they had been reduced to
writing before the death of the testator, though never signed
or seen by him and without any authentication or attestation.
This statute, which placed wills of personalty and devises
upon the same footing so far as their ceremonial execution is
concerned,' has been followed by similar enactments in almost
every state of the American Union.* A will disposing of real
or personal property must therefore, except in those excep-
tional cases where nuncupative wills. are permitted, be in writ-
ing signed or subscribed by the testator in the presence of two
witnesses at least, who must then usually sign as witnesses in
the presence of the testator, and frequently they are required
to sign in the presence of each other. The courts in constru-
ing these statutes regulating the execution of wills, which
Wells V. Evans, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 14 Ga. 173; Jones v. Marks, 47 Cal.
251; Damon v. Granby, 3 Pick. 243.
(llass.) 345 ; Harshaw v. McKesson, ' Smith v. Arnold, 5 Mason (U. S.),
65 N. C. 688 ; Adams v. Power, 52 414 ; Morton v. Dean, 13 Met. (Mass.)
Miss. 838 ; Desp. Line V. Bellamy M. 888; White v. Crew, 16 Ga. 416;
Co., 13 N. H. 305; Rhode v. Lou- White v. Watkins, 23 Mo. 433;
thain, 8 Blackf. (Ind.)413; Smith v. Walker v. Herring, 21 Gratt. (Va..)
Perry, 29 N. J. L. 74 ; Rowe v. Ware, 678 ; Cleaves v. Foss, 4 Greenl. (Me.)
30 Ga. 278 ; Scheutze v. Baily, 40 Mo. 1 ; Linn, Boyd, etc. Co. v. Terrill, 13
69; Gordon v. Buckley, 14 S. & R. Bush (Ky.), 463; Anderson v. Check,
(Pa.) 331; Cain v. Heard, 1 Coldw. 1 Bailey Eq. (S. C.) 118; Harvey v.
(Tenn.) 163. But a deed executed Stevens, 43 Vt. 653.
by an agent without authority under 2 i Vie, oh. 36.
seal, though invalid as a legal con- ' See Tiedeman on Wills, § 46 et
veyance, maybe used as evidence of seq., where the subject is fully dis-
an equitable title. Watson v. Sher- cussed,
man, 84 111. 363 ; Ingram v. Little, < Stimson, Am. St. Law, § 3640.
§ 269,] STATUTE OF FRAUDS. 405
differ somewhat in minor details in the several states, have
usually been satisfied with a substantial compliance with their
provisions.' Any act of the testator by which a sign or mark
is made upon the paper by him or for him at his request evinc-
ing his intention that the instrument shall take effect as his
will is enough.^
The' statutory provisions differ as to the position of the
signature. The statute of frauds and the American statutes
which are remodeled on it are satisfied with a signature in
any part of the will, while other statutes require a signing or
subscription at the foot or end of the will. If it is required
that the will should be subscribed at the end, a signing which
precedes any dispositive part of the will is not a valid sub-
scription. But a substantial compliance with the statute is
all that is required ; ' and the fact that the subscription is near,
or in or under the attestation clause is not material.^
The witnesses are usually required to subscribe the will in the
presence of the testator. As to what shall constitute this pres-
ence the cases are not altogether harmonious. The mere bodily
presence of the testator is not enough. He must be conscious of
what is going on about him or the attestation will be invalid.*
Very many of the cases sustain the very liberal statutory con-
struction that the signing is in the presence of the testator,
whether performed in the room where he is or not, if he can
see the act of signing if he wished to do so.^ But other au-
thorities hold that where the attestation takes place in another
room, in order to make it a signing in the testator's presence
1 In re Phelps, 98 N. Y. 367 ; Mc- baerts, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 10 ; In re
Donough V. Loughlin, 20 Barb. 338 ; Dayger, 47 Hun, 127.
In re Guilfoyle, 96 Cal. 598; Mont- ■'Hallowell v. Hallowell, 88 Ind.
gomeryv. Perkins, 2 Met. (Ky.) 418. 251; Younger v. Duffie, 94 N. Y.
^Baily v. Baily, 35 Ala. 687; 535.
Sprague v. Luther, 8 R. I. 352 ; In re 5 Right v. Price, Doug. 241 ; Gra-
Guilfoyle, 96 Cal. 398 ; In re Shot- ham v. Graham, 10 Ired. 219.
well, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 444; In re 6 Green v. Green (III., 1893), 33 N.
Knox, 131 Pa. St. 220; Jenkyns v, E. Rep. 941; Snider v. Burke, 84
Gaisford, 32 L. J. Prob. 123; Tiede- Ala. 53; Pawtucket v. Ballou, 15
man on M/ills, §§ 47, 48, 49. R. I. 58; Gallegher v. Kilkerry, 29
3 In re Voorhis, 135 N. Y. 765; lU.App. 415; Moore v. Spier, 80 Ala.
Sticker v. Groves, 5 Whart. 386; In 130; Turner v. Cook, 36 Ind. 139; In
re Conway, 58 Hun, 16 ; In re Lam- re Downie, 42 Wis. 66 ; Aiken v.
Weekerly, 19 Mich. 483.
406 STATUTE OF FEAUDS. [§ 270.
it is necessary to show that he actually did see the witnesses
in the act of subscribing their names.* In many of the states
by statute, and in some others as the result of judicial legis-
lation, it is now required that the testator should publish his
will in the presence of the witnesses. This he may do in ex-
press terms by informing the witnesses that the paper they
are attesting is his will or by any signs or actions by which
the knowledge of that fact is conveyed to them.^
§ 270. Agreements not within the statute of frauds
which must be evidenced by writings.— By various modern
statutes certain transactions not originally included within
the statute of frauds are now required to be evidenced in
writing. Thus, in New York, payment of money by execu-
tors, administrators or testamentary trustees is required to be
shown by a written receipt.' So, too, it is usually provided
that a new promise, in order to be sufficient to take a debt
out of the statute of limitation, must be in writing,"* and the
same rule is applicable to the acceptance of a bill of exchange.*
A contract to make a will must, in Massachusetts, be in writ-
ing,* as well as agreements to arbitrate,' if the arbitration is
sought to be enforced in a court of record. jSTotices in legal
proceedings are often required to be in writing, as in the case
of statutory notice to quit.^
So, too, by various federal statutes assignments of land
warrants, wages due for naval service, of contracts with In-
dians, of patents and of copyrights are required to be shown
by writing signed by the parties thereto. "Written evidence
is sometimes required of a contract of apprenticeship,' and of
the adoption of a child.'" .-:
1 Mandeville v. Parker, 31 N. J. N. Y. L. 1873, p. 1243, ch. 830. The
Eq. 243; Hill v. Barge, 12 Ala. 687. text enumerates in part only the
2Tiedeman ou Wills, § 53. transaction which should be evi-
3 N. Y. Code C. P. 2734, 2750. denced by a writing. In University
* Mass. Pub. St. 1116, ch. 197, Law School Helps No. 8, a leaflet of
§§ 15, 16 ; Code C. P. 395. six pages prepared by Mr. Austin
5 1 N. Y. R. S. 768, §§ 6, & Abbott of "New York city, from
6 Mass. Pub. St. Sup. 746, which these instances are condensed,
7 Horton v. Wilde, 8 Gray, 425. will be found a full and concise
' 1 N. Y. R. S. 745, g§ 4, 11. enumeration of the principal trans-
9 Mass. Pub. Stat. 837, ch. 149, § 5; actions which under the statute of
2 N. Y. R, S. 154. frauds and other statutes may or
1" Mass. Pub. Stat. 834, ch. 148, g 3; must be evidenced in writing.
OHAPTEE XXI.
ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES.
375.
The attendance of witnesses
at private arbitrations.
§ 283
276.
Tlie subpoena — Fees of wit-
nesses.
384
277.
Fees in criminal cases.
385
378.
Subpoena duces tecum.
279.
Time and mode of serving
the subpoena.
386
380.
Recognizance to secure pres-
ence of a witness.
287
381.
Obstructing attendance of
witnesses.
388
281a
Changing Yenue.for conven-
ience of witnesses.
289.
283.
Failure of witnesses to at-
tend— Continuance, when
granted.
Continuance in criminal
trials.
Non-attendance of witness —
When a contempt.
Privilege of witnesses from
service of civil process.
Privilege of witnesses from
civil arrest.
Duration of the privilege
from arrest.
Attendance of witnesses in
custody.
Attendance of witnesses be-
fore legislative bodies.
§ 275. The attendance of witnesses at private arbitra-
tions.— It is hardly necessar3' to state that private individuals
have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses except
in the course of a judicial or legislative investigation. So
private arbitrators cannot, in the absence of statutory author-
ization to that effect, procure the compulsory attendance of
witnesses or the production of documentary evidence.^ But
when a statutory power is conferred on the arbitrators, the
arbitration becomes a public abd g-itasi- judicial proceeding.
The arbitrator may then commit disobedient witnesses for
contempt, and the witnesses, on the other hand, are privileged
from civil arrest while in attendance at the arbitration,^ or
while going to or returning from it.
§ 276. Tlie subpoena — Fees of witness. — The power of
the court to hear and determine controvei'sies confers by im-
plication at common law the further power to require the pro-
1 Tobey v. Bristol, 3 Story, 800 ; 257 ; Sauford v. Chase, 3 Cow. (N. Y.
Webb V. Taylor, 1 D. & L. 676. 381 ; People v. Judge, 41 Mich. 736.
2 Clark V. Grant, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) .
408 ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. [§ 276.
duction of evidence for or against the controverted facts.*
The judicial power to summon witnesses is commonly ex-
ercised by the employment of a subpoena, which may be de-
fined as "a judicial writ, directed to the witness, commanding
him to appear at the court to testify what he knows in the
cause therein described, pending in such court, under a certain
penalty mentioned in the writ." ^
In England, and in most of the states of the Union, it is re-
quired by statute that the witness shall be tendered, when he is
served with the subpoena, certain fees to cover his expenses in-
curred in going to and from the place of trial and while remain-
ing there. In America these fees are usually fixed by statute,'
while in England the witness is allowed his living and travel-
ing expenses, according to what may be his social position.*
The mileage which is allowed the witness is limited to his ex-
penses incurred while traveling within the boundaries of the
jurisdiction where he testifies, since the jjrocess of the court
does not run beyond its jurisdictional limits, and his deposition
would suffice in such a case.* A witness whose expenses are
not paid or tendered need not testify though he has obeyed the
subpoena,* except where it is provided by statute that his right
thereto is waived by a compliance with the summons or the
subpoena ticliet.' Either party to the suit who appears and
testifies solely in his own behalf as a witness is not entitled
1 The attendance of a witness be- Gunnison v. Gunnison, 41 N. H. 131 ;
fore a commissioner who has been Fish v. Farwell, 33 111. App. 243;
appointed to take his deposition by a Melvin v. Whiting, 13 Pick. 190. In
court which has received letters rog- the federal courts, if the distance
atory from a court in a sister statrf traveled is not wholly within the
may be secured by a subpoena or by district, mileage will only be allowed
an order in the nature of a subpoena, for one hundred miles and return.
State V-. Bourne, 31 Oreg. 318. See The Progress, 48 Fed. Rep. 339 ;
XMst, % 389. Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Steamship Co., 29
2 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 309. Fed. Rep. 337.
3 In re Cor win, 6 Abb. N. C. 437; 6 At wood v. Scott, 99 Mass. 177;
State V. Ramsay (Mont., 1893), 28 Mattocks v. Wheaton, 10 Vt. 493;
Pao. Rep. 258, Newton v. Harland, 9 Dowl. 16.
« 2 Phil. Ev. , pp. 375, 376 ; 2 Tidd, ' But ordinarily a witness does not
p. 806; 8 Bl. Com. 369. lose his fees by not insisting on pre-
6 Crawford v. Abraham, 2 Oreg. payment. Young v. Merchants' Ins.
163; Kingfreed v. Pullen, 54 Me. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 273.
398; Stern v. Herren, 101 N. C. 516;
§ 276.]
ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES.
409
to recover his fees or mileage as such,' or to have them taxed
as costs, though the rule is otherwise if he is summoned to
testify in behalf of his opponent,^ and he need not testify until
he is paid.'
Under peculiar circumstances a witness may be" entitled to
fees for his attendance in two or more simultaneous cases, as
where he is summoned for the plaintiffs in different suits aris-
ing out.of one subject-matter.^ The fees and mileage of wit-
nesses are taxable as costs where they attend and testif^'^,
though they were not summoned ; ' or where they are summoned
in good faith and actually appear, though they may not be
called upon to testify.* The expense incurred by the witness
in procuring a survey of the land which was the subject-mat-
ter of his evidence cannot be taxed as costs;' nor is an attor-
ney who testifies solely to free himself from an imputation of
misfeasance entitled to witness fees.'
1 Grinnell v. Dennison, 12 Wis. 403 ;
Beal V. Stevens, 73 Cal. 451 ; Stratton
V. Upton, 36 N. H. 581 ; Hale v. Mer-
rill, 37 Vt. 738; Grub v. Simpson, 6
Heisk. (Tenn.^ 93 ; Nichols v. Bruns-
wick, 3 Cliff. (U. S. C. C.) 88; Del-
comyn v. Chamberlain, 48 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 409.
2 Goodwin v. Smith, 67 Ind. 101 ;
Young V. English, 7 Beav. 10 ; Har-
vey V. Tebutt, IJ. & W. 197; Penny
V. Brink, 75 N. C. 68; Bonner v.
People, 40 111. App. 638 ; Leeds v.
Amherst, 14 Sim. 357. Cf. The Prog-
ress, 48 Fed. Rep. 339.
3 It has been held that the statu-
tory fees for each day's attendance
should be paid or tendered on the
day preceding, and the failure of a
party to do so will justify the wit-
ness in returning at once to his home.
Bliss V. Brainard, 43 N. H. 255.
^Young V. Insurance Co., 39 Fed.
Eep. 273 ; Vernon, etc. Co. v. John-
son, 108 Ind. 138; Archer v. Insur-
ance Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 660; The
Vernon, 36 Fed. Rep. 113.
sChristensea v. Union, 83 Pac.
Rep. 1018 (Wash., 1893); Cahn v.
Monroe, 39 Fed. Rep. 675; The Sy-
racuse, 36 Fed. Rep. 830. Contra,
Stern v. Herren, 101 N. C. 516.
6 Fish V. Farwell, 33111. App. 343;
Ohio, etc. Co. v. Trapp (Ind., 1892),
30 N. E. Rep. 813; Baumbach v.
Gessler, 83 Wis. 331 ; Chandler v. Beal,
137 Ind, 596; Young v. Insurance
Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 373; Pugh v. Good
(Greg., 1890), 33 Pac. Rep. 837. But
where thirty-two witnesses were
summoned to impeach plaintiff's
character the fees of only five were
allowed, though all were admitted
to have been called in good faith.
Kley V. Healey, 3 N. Y. S. 331.
7 Tuck V. Olds, 29 Fed. Rep. 883.
spearsman v. Gold (N. J., 1889),
8 Atl. Rep. 385. It is provided by
the Revised Statutes of the United
States, section 850, that no federal
officer or clerk shall receive more
than his necessary expenses when he
is attending court as a witness for
the government. Ex parte Burdell,
33 Fed. Rep. 681 ; In re Waller, 49
Fed. Rep. 371. In calculating mile-
410 ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. [§ 277.
§ 277. Fees in criminal cases. — The proseoution in a
criminal proceeding is under no necessity of paying its wit-
nesses tlieir expenses, as in theory it is conceived to be the
duty of every citizen to assist so far as lies in his power, with-
out compensation or reward, in the punishment of wrong-
doers. A statute, therefore, which provides that a witness is
not entitled to fees in criminal cases does not conflict with a
constitutional guaranty that no man's services shall be de-
manded without just coni,pensation.^ If, because of his pov-
erty, a witness who is summoned in a criminal trial is unable
to attend, he will not, it seems, be in contempt of court.^ The
prisoner on trial for a capital crime possessed, at common
law, no right to compulsory process to obtain the attendance
of his witnesses, while, if they attended voluntarily, that cruel
system of jurisprudence gave the judge the discretion to re-
fuse to permit their examination because they had not been
legally summoned.'
By the provisions of the federal constitution and the con-
stitutions of the several states, the right to compulsory pro-
cess for obtaining the attendance of witnesses in his own
behalf is secured to the prisoner;* and it is often provided by
' statute that if he is acquitted his witness fees shall be paid
by the county.' So, too, a subpoena is not always essential;
for if a witness, though not summoned, is in court, he may be
age the distance covered is measured "^bb. Crim. Brief, citing United
as the crow flies (Leigh v. Hind, 17 States v. Eeid, 12 How. (U. S.) 361.
E. C. L. 774), though sometimes it *Homan 'v. State, 23 Texas, 213;
may be measured by the usually Willard v. Superior Court, 83 Cal.
traveled route. Smith v. Ingraham, 456.
7 Cow. 419. " The most direct route « State v. Massy, 104 N. C. 877;
of travel" between two places. State v. Willis (Iowa, 1889), 44 N. W.
within the meaning of a statute Rep. 699. A statute which prescribes
giving a sheriff mileage for carry- that a criminal trial shall not be
ing prisoners to a penitentiary, is the postponed when either party thereto
railroad, although it is sixty-four consents that the facts contained in
miles long while the highway is an affidavit for a continuance shall
but thirty-five. Maynard v. Cedar be regarded as the evidence of the
County, 51 Iowa, 431. absent witness is unconstitutional,
1 Daly v. Multnomah Co., 14 Oreg. as it deprives a prisoner of his con-
20. Cf. Morin v. Multnomah Co. stitutional right to compulsory pro-
(Oreg., 1889), 22 Pac. Rep. 490. cess. State v. Berkley, 93 Mo. 41.
21 Greenl. on Ev., §311; United This constitutional right, however,
States V. Burling, 4 Biss. 509. is not absolute, and does not from
§ 278.] ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. 411
called to testify.^ It has been held, however, that an attach-
ment against a witness will not be granted the accused in the
absence of a showing that the evidence is material,^ and that
the witness has been summoned, or that proper efforts 'have
been made to procure his attendance, that he is in the state,
and that his early presence can be secured.' A witness who
is subpoenaed and who testifies in behalf of a person accused
of a felony may recover for his services in an action of as-
sumpsit^ * though it also has been held that he is entitled only
to the amount prescribed by statutory enactment as witness
fees, even if the party had promised to pay more.* If a wit-
ness becomes entitled to certain statutory fees on attending
and testifying, his right thereto is a vested right which is pro-
tected by constitutional guaranties and which cannot be de-
stro3'ed or impaired by any subsequent legislation."
§ 278. Subpoena duces tecum. — "Where the production of
documentary evidence in the possession of the witness is re-
quired a subpoena duces tecum is employed, commanding him
to search for and bring to court certain boolcs or papers which
are specifically described, together with all documents and
writings which may afford evidence in the cause.' The writ-
necessity include witnesses who are 574. Cf. State v. McCarthy, 43 La.
resident out of the state (State v. Ann. 541.
Pagels, 93 Mo. 300 ; 4 S. W. Rep. 931 ; « Bennett v. Kroth, 87 Kan. 235.
State V. Hornsby, 8 Rob. (La.) 554), 5 Walker v. Cook, 33 111. App. 561.
or those within the state whose In this connection it may be of
deposition can easily be procured if service to define the word " wit-
they are unable to attend in person, ness.'' The term is a general one,
Willard v. Superior Court, supra. If including every person from whose
the venue is changed on the applica- lips testimony is received or ex-
tion of the state's attorney, the court tracted to be used in a judicial or
may make it a condition that the guasi-judicial proceeding. An "af-
traveling expenses of the defend- fiant " or a " deponent" is always a
ant's witnesses who are too poor to vi'itness, but every witness is of
pay their own expenses shall be pro- course not an affiant or deponent,
vided for. People v. Baker, 3 Abb. Anderson's Law Dictionary, citing
Pr. 43; 3 Park. Grim. Rep. 181. Barker v. Coit, 1 Root, 335 (Conn.);
1 Robinson v. Trull, 4 Cush. 249 ; Bliss v. Shuman, 47 Me. 353.
Rex v. Sadler, 4 C. & P. 318; Black- « People v. Pyper (Utah, 1889), 21
burn V. Hargreave, 3 Lew. C. C. 359, Pac. Rep. 723.
cited in 1 Greenl. on Ev. , § 811. '' 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 309 ; 3 Bl. Com.
2 People V. Marseiler, 70 Cal. 9. 883.
estate V. Johnson, 41 La. Ann.
412 ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. [§ 278.
ings which are required should be described specifically and
with certainty according to the circumstances of the case, so
that the witness, on the one hand, may know what is re-
quired of him, and the court, on the other, may ascertain if
the subpoena has been properly obeyed.' The object pf the
writ is the production of documentary evidence alone, and a
piece of metal or other article cannot be brought in court by
a subpoena duces teoum; ^ nor can the writ be employed for the
sole purpose of discovering a secret process of manufacturing
a patented article,' nor to compel the production of writings
not as evidence but to refresh the memory of a witness.^ But
disobedience to a subpoena duces tecum by a postofRce oflBcial
is not excusable because the rules of his department forbid
the disclosure by him of any information contained in its
records.*
As the power to issue a subpoena duces tecum is derived
from the power to command the production of a material
witness "to testify," the omission of the words "to testify"
will invalidate the subpoena itself.* A witness in whose pos-
session are papers which it is sought to produce by a subpoena
duces tecum is not excusable for refusing or neglecting to
bring them into court because they do not belong to him.'' If
he is a custodian of public records, he may be excused from
doing so in answer to a subpoena on account of the public in-
1 Mitchell V. Sheriff, .7 Abb. Pr. 96 ; issue of a subpoena duces tecum.
United States v. Babcock, 3 Bill. While a subpoena duces tecum is un-
(U. S.) 568; Elting V. United States, returned or unserved, no second sub-
27 Ct. CI. 158. poena will be valid for the same
2 Re Shepard, 18 Blatch. 366; John- purpose. Elting v. United States, 27
son v. North Branch Co., 48 Fed. Ct. CI. 158.
Rep. 191. 'The mere assertion of corporative
8 Averell v. Barber, 63 Hun, 680. officials that the corporation's books
< United States v. Tilden, 10 Ben. are not in their possession is not suf-
566, 570-581. ficient to excuse their disobedience
5 Rice v. Rice (Ala., 1893), 25 Atl. of an order of court for the produc-
Rep. 21. tion of the books wrhere it appears
6 Murray v. Elston, 33 N. J. Eq. that the books were lately in their
213. In Ex parte Moses, 53 Fed. possession, and they have failed to
Rep. 346, it was held that the stat- account for their disappearance,
utory power to issue a subpoena Fenlon v. Dempaey, 31 Abb. N. 0.
commanding a witness "to appear 291.
and testify" did not authorize the
§ 279.] ATTENDANCE OF AYITNESSES. 413
convenience which would very probably ensue, and because
thfe writings in question may be satisfactorily proved by prop-
erly authenticated copies.' In any case the sufficiency of the
reason for not producing a writing in obedience to a subpoena
duces teoum is for the court.^
§ 279. Time and mode of serving the subpoena. — In jus-
tice to the witness the subpcena should be seasonably served.
He should be given a reasonable opportunity so to arrange
his business that it will not suffer greatly by his absence.' It
is now generally provided by statute in this country that the
witness shall be allowed one day's time for every twenty
miles he is compelled to travel from, his place of abode to the
place of trial. In every case, however, at least one day's no-
tice is necessary.* The subpoena should be served personally,
that the witness, being apprised of its contents, may be charge-
able with contempt for his disobedience to it. To consti-
tute personal service the subpoena should be shown to the
witness, and a copy thereof or a subpoena ticket containing a
concise summary of its contents, with an oral statement of
what the paper is, should be delivered to him together with
his statutory fees.'
Service may be made by a private person as a party * or by
a sheriiJ or other official acting for a party to the suit. In
the former case proof of service may be made by the affidavit
of the person serving the writ; in the latter by the return of
the officer.' A subpoena is only valid to secure the attend-
ance of a witness in the particular cause in which it has been
issued, and is inoperative to secure his presence at a subse-
quent term to which the trial has been subsequently ad-
journed.' Sometimes by statute a penalty is imposed upon a
witness who fails or refuses to obey a subpoena which has
been properly served on him. The penalty is recovered by
a civil action brought against the witness by the party ag-
1 See ante, §§ 142c, 146-150. meana personal service where no
2 1Whart. Ev., §377. other mode is expressly indicated.
3 In re Hughbanks, 44 Kan. 105. Rathburn v. Acker, 18 Barb. 375.
* Soammon v. Soanimon, 33 N. H. ^ Larimore v. Bobb (Mo., 1893), 21
53; Sims v. Kitchen, 5 Esp. 46; 1 S. W. Rep. 922.
Greenl. Ev., § 310. 'McLane v. Piaggio (Fla., 1888), 3
5 2 Phil. Ev., § 373. A statute re- S. Rep. 830. See ante, % 150a.
quiring service on a person always ^ gapp v. King, 66 Tex. 570.
414 ATTENDANCE OP WITNESSES. [§§ 280, 281.
grieved. Under such circumstances the writ of subpcsna is
regarded as primary evidence of the service on the defendant
and its existence cannot be proved by the admission of the
defendant.' Parol evidence is admissible, however, to show
his non-attendance.^
§ 280. Recognizance to secure presence of a witness. —
In criminal proceedings, where the accused has been com-
mitted for trial or to await the action of the grand jury, or
where the trial is continued, it is sometimes the practice to
require the recognizance or personal bond of a witness in order
that his attendance at the trial may be secured.^ Sureties
may also be taken in the discretion of the court, and if they
are not procurable, or if the witness refuses to give his recog-
nizance, he may be kept in custody.'' The modern tendency
is to regard such a mode of procedure as oppressive and unjust
to an innocent person whose only offense is his accidental
presence at a place where a crime is alleged to have been
committed,* and consequently it is sometimes provided by
statute that a witness who is unable to give sureties for his
appearance may be released from custody upon giving his
deposition.*^
§ 281. Obstructing attendance of witnesses. — At common
law, and now very frequently by statute, any attempt to retard
or prevent the attendance of witnesses,^ or the act of advising
a witness not to answer,^ is a misdemeanor.' It matters not
1 Hasbrouok v. Baker, 10 Johns. ' 4 Bl. Com. 129; Cutler t. Wright,
248. W. N. 1890, p. 28; State v. Carpen-
2 Cogswell V. Meech, 12 Wend, ter, 20 Vt. 9 ; Martin v. State, 28
147. Ala. 71; United States v. Kee, 39
SQwyn v. State, 64 Miss. 324; Fed. Rep. 603 ; Com. v. Feely, 2 Va.
Comfort V. Kittle, 81 Iowa, 179. Cas. 1; State v. Ames, 64 Me. 386;
*2Hale, P. C. 282; Roscoe, Crim. Cameron v. Lightfoot, 2 W. Bl.
Ev., p. 87; Evans v. Rees, 12 Ad. & 1193; Com. v. Reynolds, 14 Gray,
El. 55. See Laws U. S. 1846, ch. 98, 87; State v. Horner (Del., 1893), 26
§ 7 ; Fawcett v. Linthecum, 7 Ohio Atl. Rep. 73.
Cir. Ct. R. 141; 1 Greenl. on Ev., 8 state v. Gandy, 33 Neb. 436;
§ 313. Perrow v. State, 67 Miss. 365.
6 See State v. Grace, 18 Minn. 398. » The fact that the witness was ex-
1* People V. Lee, 49 Cal. 37. A wit- pected to testify, though he is not
ness imprisoned is entitled to his per under recognizance to appear or has
diem while thus committed. Robin- been subpoenaed, is enough. State
son V. Chambers, 94 Mich. 471. v. Horner (Del., 1893), 26 Atl. Rep. 73.
§ 281ffl.J ATTENDANCE OP WITNESSES. 415
that the attempt is unsuccessful,' or that the obstructor re-
frains from the employment of violence and confines himself
wholly to threats or scurrilous language,^ gets the witness
drunk,' or employs the machinery of the law to prevent the
attendance of the witness by preferring an unfounded charge
of crime against him, and, in collusioi>with a magistrate, pro-
cures his imprisonment.* The witness himself may procure
the arrest of the party who has thus maliciously hindered his
attendance at court,' or the person who is guilty of the offense
of intimidating or obstructing the witness ma}'' be indicted by
the grand jury.* Intimidating a witness from testifying
against a felon, though a misdemeanor, does not, it is held,
constitute the offender an accessory to the felony ; ' nor is a
person punishable for intimidating or impeding a witness who
beats him after he has given his testimony.^ The public pros-
ecuting attorney should not be allowed to endeavor to dis-
suade the witnesses for the accused from appearing and testif}'-
ing, even though he may believe they are unreliable and will
perjure themselves.'
§ 281a. Changing venue for convenience of witnesses. —
In order to save the expenditure of large sums as mileage or
for the taking of depositions, it is very frequently provided
by statute that, where the convenience of the witnesses re-
quires it, the venue or place of trial of the action may be
changed. Thus, where all the transactions occurred in the
county to which it has been moved to change the venue,'" or
where, though the transaction may have happened elsewhere,
' Gandy v. State, 23 Neb. 436 ; ity of the evidence of the witness
State V. Carpenter, 20 Vt. 9. (Com. v. Reynolds, 14 Gray, 87); or
2 Rex V. Onslow, 12 Cox, 356 ; the particular method used to in-
Charlton's Case, ,3 My. & Cr, 816; timldate him (State v. Ames, 64 Me;
Littler v. Thompson, 2 Beav. 129. 386), should be set forth in the in-
8 State V. Holt, 84 Me. 509. . dictment. See, also, Perrow v. State,
* United States v. Kindred, 4 67 Miss. 365 ; State v. Bailer, 35 W.
Hughes (U. S.), 493; State v. Buck, Va. 90.
63 N. H. 670 (witness arrested in civil ' Reg. v. Chappie, 9 C. & P. 355.
case). 8 United States v. Thomas, 47 Fed.
« Magnay v. Burt, 5 Q. B. 394. Rep. 807. Of. United States v. Kee,
6 It i^ not necessary that the record 89 Fed. Rep. 603.
of the case in which the witness was ' Gandy v. State, 23 Neb. 436 ; 40
summoned (State v. Carpenter, 20 N. W. Rep. 802.
Vt. 9) ; or the fact of the material- '« Smith v. Mack, 24 N. Y. S. 131.
416
ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES.
[§ 282.
all or a large majority of the material witnesses reside in that
jurisdiction, the motion to change the venue should be granted.^
But the rule is that no change of venue can be had in criminal
trials for the convenience of witnesses,^ and in civil cases, if
the adverse party will sign a stipulation admitting what the
witnesses will prove, the motion for a change of venue for
their convenience may be refused.'
§ 282. Failure of witnesses to attend — Continuance, when
granted. — The parties should employ and exhaust every avail-
able means to procure the attendance of their witnesses, and
should be given every facility by the court for this purpose,
together with any reasonable and necessary amount of delay.
If, however, a party wholly neglects to summon a witness, or
if, having subpoenaed him, counsel voluntarily goes to trial or
fails to ask for a continuance in case the witness does not ap-
pear, the party cannot be heard to complain because the court
orders the trial to proceed.*
The granting of a continuance because of the absence of a
witness is largely, if not wholly,^ a matter of discretion for
1 Thompson v. Brandt (Cal., 1893),
33 Pac. Rep. 890; Einggenburg v.
Hartman, 103 Ind. 537; Nelson t.
Nelson, 66 Hun, 633 ; Porter v. Lyle,
id. 639 ; Cordas v. Morrison, 23 N. Y.
S. 1076; Thurfjell v. Witherbee, 34
id. 278; Dunn v. Lewis, 65 Hun,
■620; Thompson v. Norwood, 64 id.
036 ; Perry v. Boomhauer, 17 N. Y.
S. 890; 68 Hun, 629; Daley v. Hell-
'man, 63 Hun, 620 ; Kurz v. Fish, 58
id. 603.
2 People V. Harris, 4 Den. (N. Y.)
150.
3 Wright V. Burritt, 63 Hun, 638,
4 Pease v. State (Ga., 1893), 16
S. E, Rep. 113; Carllo v. State (Tex,,
1893), 23 S. W. Rep. 147; Crew v.
State (Tex,, 1893), 32 S, W. Rep.
973; Clay v. State (Tex,, 1893), 33
S. W, Rep, 973; Dale v. State, 88
Ga. 553; Spahn v. People, 117 111,
538 ; Johnson v. State, 85 Ga. 561 ;
State V. Underwood, 44 La. Ann.
1114. A continuance is properly re-
fused where a party admits as evi-
dence the statement of facts in his
adversary's application for the con-
tinuance showing what the absent
witness was expected to prove. San-
ford V. Gates, 38 Kan. 405 ; Woolsey
V. Jones, 84 Ala. 88; Chicago, etc,
Co. V. Duffln (111., 1888), 18 N. E.
Rep. 379. If the absence of the wit-
ness was anticipated, and particu-
larly if prior to his departure his
deposition could have been readily
obtained, a continuance should be
refused because of his absence. Valle
V. Picton, 91 Mo. 307; 3 S. W. Rep.
860.
5 Winklemeier v. Daber, 52 N. W.
Rep. 1036 ; 93 Mich. 621 ; White v,
Portland (Conn., 1893), 36 Atl. Rep.
343; Guy v. Metcalf, 83 Tex. 37;
McQueen v. People's Nat. Bank, 111
N. C. 509 ; Richmond R. & .E. Co.
V, Dick, 8 U, S, App. 99; 52 Fed,
Rep. 879; Valle v. Picton, 91 Mo.
207; 3 S. W. Rep. 860; MoKinsey
§ 282.] ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES, 417
the court, and, unless the evidence of the witness is material, a
refusal to allow a continuance is not ground for a new trial.^
Not only must the materiality of the evidence of the absent
witness be shown, but the party should also show that he has
been served with a subpoena, or, if he cannot be found, that a
diligent search has been made for him.^ If the witness is con-
fined to his house by illness or is absent from the jurisdiction,
that 'fact must appear, and usually it must also be shown that
his illness is so severe as to prevent his deposition from being
obtained.^ The party must also show that no other witnesses
are known to him by which he could prove what he expects
to prove by the absent witness.* So a continuance should be
refused where the witness is a convict whose disabilities have
never been removed,^ where it appears that his evidence would
be irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible,^ or where he is a per-
son having only a transient abode, without social or business
ties in the jurisdiction, and the party linows nothing of his
whereabouts or of the possibility of obtaining his future at-
tendance.'' But where the materiality of the evidence is
shown, the absence of the witness satisfactorily accounted for,
V. MoKee, 109 Ind. 209. Plaintiff Strufchers v. Fuller, 45 Kan. 735;
sued to recover the value of two Doll v. Mundine, 84 Tex. 315; Kilmer
horses. Defendant moving for a v. St. Louis, Ft. S. & W. R. Co., 37
continuance because of the absence Kan. 84; 14 Pac. Rep. 465.
of a w^itness, plaintiff agreed to dis- ^ Marmet v. Archibald, 37 W. Va.
miss the suit as to the horse regard- 778; Murphy v. State (Tex., 1893), 31
ing which the witness was to testify. S. W. Rep. 4!); Texas, etc. Co. v.
A continuance was properly refused. Hall, 83 Tex. 675 ; St. Jjouis, etc. Co.
Herd v. Herd, 71 Iowa, 497. v. Olive, 40 111. App. 83; German
1 Barbour v. Melendy, 88 Va. 595 ; Ins. Co. v. Penrod, 35 Neb. 273 ; Doll
Central R. Co. v. Curtis, 87 Ga. 416; v. Mundine, 84 Tex. 315.
Cox V. Hart, 145 U. S. 376; Ala- * Davis, etc. Co. v. Riverside Co.
bama, etc. Co. V. Hill, 93 Ala. 514; (Wis., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 506;
Davis, etc. Co. v. Riverside Co. Hodges v. Nash, supra; Toledo, etc.
(Wis., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 506; Co. v. Stevenson, 131 Ind. 803;
Stone V. Railroad Co. (S. D., 1893), Trevelyan, Adm'r, v. Lofft, 83 Va.
53 N. W. Rep. 189 ; Hodges v. Nash, 141.
43 111. App. 638. ' Tillman v. Fletcher, 78 Tex. 673.
2 Clolaston V. Gray, 48 Kan. 31. An 6Longnecker v. Shields (Colo.,
allegation of diligence in the search 1893), 28 Pac. Rep. 659.
is not sufficient. The question of ' Carberry v. Warrell, 68 Miss. 573 ;
diligence is for the court, and the Mantonya v. Hierter, 35 111. App.
facts constituting it must be shown 37; Watson v. Blymer Manufg. Co.,
in detail by the affidavit of the party. 3 S, W. Rep. 353 ; 66 Tex. 558.
27
418 ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. [§ 233.
and a proper guaranty given that his testimony will be forth-
coming at the next term, a refusal to grant a continuance has
been held to be reversible error.^
§ 283. Continuance in ci'iniinal trials. — In criminal as in
civil causes the power to grant a continuance because of the
absence of a witness is, in the absence of statute prescribing
when one must be granted, a matter of discretion.^ As a rule
the courts are disposed to exercise this discretion liberally in
favor of life and liberty; and where the competency of the
absent witness and the materiality and probable truth of his
testimony are shown prima facie by affidavits by the accused,
the courts have gone very far in sustaining his right to have
a continuance granted.' But if the evidence which the absent
witness is expected to give is very 'remote or immaterial,*
or is merely cumulative in its character,'* the continuance
should be refused. If from the evidence already received
it appears that the absent witness has no knowledge of the
matter in issue,^ or if the court has suiBcient reason for
believing that certain facts which the absent witness is ex-
pected to controvert are already so far sustained by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that his testimony bearing thereon
iGonriug v. Railroad Co., 78 Wis. Tex. App.'86; Sutton v. People, 119
16; Johnson v. Mills, 31 Neb. 534; III. 250.
Cookv. Larson, 47 Kan. 70. * Goldsmith v. State (Tex., 1893),
2 Brown v. State, 1 Pickle (Tenn.), 23 S. W. Rep. 405 ; Dow v. State, 31
439; State v. Wise, 33 S. C. 383; Tex. Cr. Rep. 278; Knowles v. State,
Jackson v. State, 54 Ark. 243; 31 id. 383; State v. Falconer, 70
Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 76; Wool- Iowa, 418; State v. Spillman, 43 La.
folk V. State, 85 Ga. 69; Thompson Ann. 1001; State v. Turlington, 103
T. Com., 88 Va. 45; Price v. People, Mo. 643; Hyburn v. State, 26 Tex.
131 III. 223; Hardesty v. Com., 88 App. 668; Crumpton v. United
Ky. 587; Walkup v. Com. (Ky., States, 138 U. S. 361.
1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 331. 'Attaway v. State, 31 Tex. Cr.
3 Bowlin V. Com. (Ky., 1893), 23 S. Rep. 475; McKinney v. State, 3
W. Rep. 543; Givens V. State (Tex., Wyo. 719; Smith v. Com. (Ky.,
1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 44; Tankersley 1892), 17 S. W. Rep. 68; Gonzales v.
V. State, 31 Tex. Cr. App. 595; State State, 80 Tex. App. 203; Wilkeraon
V. Lund, 49 Kan. 580 ; Harrington v. Com. , 88 Ky. 29.
V. State, 31 Tex. Crim. Rep. 577; « Griffin v. State (Tex., 1893), 20 S.
Hyden v. State, 31 Tex. Crim. Rep. W. R^p. 563; Jones v. State, 31 Tex.
401; Price v. People, 131 111. 323; Cr. Rep. 177; Norris v. State (Tex.,
Pyburn v. State, 84 Ga. 193; Mc- 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 592; Childs v.
Adam v. State, 5 S. W, Rep. 836; 24 State (Tex., 1893), 23 S. W. Rep. 1039.
'§ 28 i.]
iTTENDANCE OF WITNESSES.
419
■would probably be untrue,' it is not error for the' court to re-
fuse a continuance. Wliere by consent and to avoid a contin-
uance a stipulation is entered into that an absent witness for
the accused will testify as alleged, the reputation of the witne^ss
for veracity may be attacked by the state.^
§ 284. Non-attendance of witnesses — When a contempt of
court. — A witness who has been properly summoned is guilty
of a contempt of court if he intentionally fails or refuses to
attend;' and the court ma}', if his contempt is very mani-
fest, grant an ex parte and immediate order for his arrest,
though usually an attachment will issue only after the grant-
ing and return of a preliminary order-to show cause.* Nor is
it essential that the trial should have begun or the witness
have been called in open court before an attachment will issue
to procure his presence if clear proof is offered that he is wil-
fully disobedient to the court in thus absenting himself.^ The
party should move promptly for an attachment to bring the
witness in person before the court, founding his application
1 Brown v. State (Tex., 1893), 23 S.
W. Rep. 596 ; Robbins v. State (Tex.,
1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 358 ; Harvey v.
State, 21 Tex.App. 178.
2 Johnson v. Com. (Ky., 1894), 23
S. W. Rep. 507. The affidavit for a
continuance must show specifically
the facts to which the witness will
testify, their connection with and
relevancy to the subject-matter
(Long V. People, 135 111. 535; State
V. Manceaux, 43 La. Ann. 1164;
Carthaus v. State, 78 Wis. 540; Hol-
land V. State, 81 Tex. Cr. Rep. 345);
that the witness has a knowledge of
such facts (Long v. People, 34 111.
App. 481 ; Benge v. Com. (Ky., 1893),
17 S. W. Rep. 146); that the affiant
believes the evidence of the witness
is true (State v, Dusenberry, 113 Mo.
377; North i. People, 139 111. 81);
that he also believes that his testi-
moijy can be procured in time, stat-
ing the grounds for such belief (State
V. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729; Skates
V. State, 64 Miss. 644 ; Faulkner v.
Territory (N. M., 1893), 30 Pac. Rep.
905; State v. Aired (Mo., 1893), 33 S.
W. Rep. 363); and that proper dili-
gence has been employed to pro-
cure the attendance of the witness.
Haverstick v. State (Ind., 1893), 33
N. E. Rep. 785; Vogt v. Com. (Ky.,
1892), 17 S. W. Rep. 313. See post,
g§ 355-358, as to the form and lan-
guage of affidavits generally.
2 In re Gunn, 50 Kan. 155 ; People
V. Brown, 46 Hun, 320.
^The power to grant an attach-
ment is discretionary (Dowden v.
Junker, 48 N. J. Eq. 584 ; State v.
Hillstock (La., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 353;
Bradley v. Fertilizer Co. (N. C, 1893),
17 S. E. Rep. 69), though the matter
is usually regulated by statute.
People v. Barrett, 56 Hun, 351.
5 Wilson V. State, 57 Ind. 71 ; Brad-
ley V. Fertilizer Co. (N. C, 1893), 17
S. E. Rep. 69 (examination of de-
fendant before trial). Cf. Robsen v.
State, 83 Ga. 166; 9 S. E. Rep. 610.
420 ATTENDANOE OF WITNESSES. [§ 285.
upon affidavits showing a prompt, seasonable and personal
service of the subpoena and the payment or tender of the
proper fees; for a writ of attachment for contempt is an ex-
traordinary remedy, wholly in the discretion of the court, and
it should only issue upon clear and convincing evidence that its
issuance is needed,' and that the evidence of the witness is ma-
terial,^ though the immateriality of his evidence will be no de-
fense for a witness who distinctly refuses to obey a subpoena.'
A witness who has received early notice to attend court
will be in contempt if, believing he has sufficient time, he
postpones compliance with the subpcena until the case is on
trial.* A magistrate who b}' the laws of the forum possesses
the power to punish for contempt may, where he is requested
by letters rogatory to take a deposition, commit a witness for
contempt if the latter fails to obey his summons or if he re-
fuses to be sworn or to answer any proper questions.'
§ 285. Privilege of witnesses from service of civil pro-
cess.— A witness whose, residence is beyond the jurisdiction
of the court is privileged from the service of a summons or
other civil process under the same conditions as to time and
place, and for the same reasons, as he is exempt from civil
arrest while voluntarily attending court.^ Tlie defect in the
service of a writ, caused by the privilege or exemption of the
1 Garden v. Creswell, 2 M. & W. Wilder, 40 Ohio St. 130; Sherman
319; State v. Trounce, 5 Wash. St. v. Gundlach, 37 Minn. 118; In re
804 ; People v. Van Tassell, 64 Hun, Healey, 53 Vt. 694 ; Bolgiano v. Lock
444; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 253. Co., 78 Md. 133; Finch v. Galli-
2 Corbett v. Gibson, 16 Blatchf. C. gher, 25 Abb. N. C. 404 ; Palmer v.
C. 334; Dicasv. Lawson, 1 Or., M. & Rowan, 31 Neb. 453; Mulhearn v.
R. 984. Press Pub. Co., 53 N. J. L. 153 ; Mas-
•1 Chapman v. Davis, 8 M. cfc G. sey v. Colville, 45 N. J. L. 119; Wil-
609; Scholes v. Hilton, 10 M. & W. son v. Donaldson, 117 Ind. 856; Pope
16. V. Negus, 14 Civ. Pro. Rep. 406;
* Jackson v. Seager, 3 D. & L. 13. Marks v. Societie, 33 id. 201; Shee-
Cf. Reg. V. Sloman, 1 Dowl. 618. han v. Bradford, etc. Co., 13 id. 439.
SBurnham v. Stevens, 83 N. H, This exemption is limited to the
247. jurisdiction in which the witness
6 See § 286; Hollander v. Hall, 58 testifies. So a resident of "Vermont
Hun, 604 ; Christian v. Williams, 85 may be served with civil process in
Mo. App. 397 ; First Nat. Bank v. Massachusetts while passing through
Doty, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 287 ; Thorp v. that state to testify in a Connecticut
Adams, 58 Hun, 603 ; Mitchell v. court. Holyoke, etc. Co, v. Ambden,
Judge, 53 Mich. 5fl ; Compton v. 55 Fed. Rep. 598.
§ 286.] ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. 421
person served, not appearing on the record, the service cannot
be set aside on motion merely. The privilege of a witness is
a defense which must be pleaded in abatement, and the issue
of fact, if any, arising thereon is for the jury.^
§ 286. Privilege, of witnesses from civil arrest. — Wit-
nesses are protected from arrest under civil process during the
time they are proceeding to, remaining at or returning from
court," or a place where a legislative or congressional investiga-
tion committee is in session.' Non-resident witnesses, in order
to encourage their voluntary attendance, and because they can-
not be summoned by subpoena, will be privileged though they
may come into the state, voluntarily;* but the rule is other-
wise in the case of a witness residing in the jurisdiction at-
tending voluntarily without a subpcena.' The witness waives
his privilege by voluntarily submitting to arrest or by failing
to assert it and to claim his liberty at his earliest opportunity."
He cannot then claim. that his privilege has been violated.'
The court in which the witness is called to testify will, in the
case of his illegal arrest, order his immediate discharge upon
motion,' though in the case of inferior courts the witness may
be under the necessity of employing the writ of habeas corpus?
The trial in which he was to testify will be continued until
his discharge.^"
1 Greer v. Young, 120 111. 184. L.) 517; Hardenbrook's Case, 8 Abb.
2 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 316 ; Meeklns Pr. (N. Y.)416 ; McNeil's Case, supra.
V. Smith, 1 H. Bl. 636; Ballinger v. ^Woods v. Davis, 34 N. H. 328;
Elliott, 72 N, C. 596 ; Randall v. Gur- Smith v. Jones, 76 Me. 138 ; Hess v.
ney, 3 B. & A. 352; Huntington v. Morgan, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 84.
Schultz, Harp. (S. C.) 453; Hoplnna U Greenl. on Ev., § 317; Brown
V. Coburn, 1 "Wend. (N. Y.)293; May v. Getchell, 11 Mass. 11, 14; Steven-
V. Shumway, 16 Gray, 86; E.x parte son v. Smith, 38 N. H. la; Dow v.
Temple, 3 Ves. & B. 391, 395; Sand- Smith, 7 Vt. 465.
ford V. Chase, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 381. 8 Moore v. Grfien, 73 N. C. 394;
3 Thompson's Case, 123 Mass. 248. Cooley's Const. Lim., p. 163.
< Person v. Grier, 66 N. Y. 134; "Smith v. Jones, 76 Me. 138.
Norris v. Beach, 2 Johns. 294; May l» 1 Greenl. ou Sv., g 318, citing
V. Shumway, 16 Gray, 88; Dixon v. Sanford v. Chase, 3 Cowen, 381 ; Bell
Ely, 4 Edw, (N. Y.) 557; Ballinger v. v. State, 4 Gill, 301 ; Hunt's Case, 4
Elliott, 73 N. C. 596; Jones v. Knaus, Dall. 387; Com. v. Daniel, 4 Pa. L.
31 N. J. Eq. 311. J. K. 49; United States v. Edrae, 9
5 Rogers v. Bullock, 3 Pen. (3 N. J. S. & R. (Pa.) 147 ; Crocker v. Dun-
can, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 378.
-422 ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. [§ 287.
§ 287. Duration of tlie privilege from arrest.— The wit-
■ness is privileged not pnly on his journey to and from court,
but during his detention in the place where the court is sit-
ting, if the sole reason of his stay is his purpose to testify.'
The rule allows a reasonable time for the journey but does
not countenance loitering,^ though a slight deviation to par-
take of food,' to see one's friends* or to obtain papers which
are to be used as evidence at the trial,^ will not nullify the priv-
ilege from arrest. If the witness, after testifying, before re-
turning home proceeds to transact business which is wholly
unconnected with his functions as a witness, his privilege
ceases.^ A witness in attendance is privileged while at his
lodgings' or during a temporary adjournment of the court,'
though his inability to start for his home after the trial is
over because of his lack of means will not extend his privilege.'
An officer, unless he is informed thereof, is not bound to know
that a person whom he arrests is privileged as a witness;'" and
it seems that no action for false imprisonment can be main-
tained against an officer making or a person procuring the
arrest under such circumstances." An arrest made after the
termination of the privilege is not illegal because it is based
on process which had issued and on which the witness had
been once illegally arrested while the privilege existed.'^
1 Perse V. Perse, 5 H. L. Cas. 671; 439; Gibbs v. Phillipson, 1 K. &
Gibbs V. Phillipson, 1 Russ. & My. My. 19.
19; Ex parte Hurst, 1 Wash. C. C. 8 Ex parte Temple, 2 Ves. c& B.
186. 391 ; Spencer v. Newton, 6 Ad. & E.
2 Chaffee v. Jones, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 623; Hatch v. Blisset, 2 Stra. 986.
260. 9 Spencer v. Newton, 6 Ad. & E.
3Mahon v. Mahon, 3 Irish Eq. 633.
440. iKCooley on Torts, p. 192; Secor v.
iPitt V. Cooraes, 5 B. & Ad. 1078; Bell, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) •'52; Sperry v.
Attorney-General v. Skinner's Co., Willard, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 32; Wood
8 Sim. 377; Ex parte Clark, 3 Dea. v. Kinsman, 5 Vt. 588; Brown v.
& Ch. 99. Getchell, 11 Mass. 11.
•''Ricketts V. Gurney, 7Price, 699. n Smith v. Jones, 76 Me. 138;
^ Shults V. Andrews, 54 How. Pr. Sperry v. Willard, supra; Vande-
(N. Y.)380; Heron v. Stokes, 6 Ir. velde v. Snellen, 1 Keb. 320; Chase
Eq. 125 ; Pitt v. Coomes, supra; Selby v. Fish', 16 Me. 133.
V. Hills, 8 Bing. 166 ; Jones v. Rose, 12 Humphrey v. Gumming, 5 Wend.
11 Jur. 379. (N. Y.) 90; Petrie v. Fitzgerald, 1
'Childerston v. Barrett, 11 East, Daly (N. Y.), 401.
■|§ 288, 289.] - ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. 423
§ 288. Attendance of witnesses in custody. — The attend-
ance of a witness who is incarcerated in prison or who is in
the military or naval service may be procured by the service
of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum on the prison
keeper or officer in whose immediate charge he is.^ The ap-
plication for the writ should specify the nature of the suit in
which his attendance is needed, that the evidence of the wit-
ness is material, and that the witness is restrained from at-
tending court, together with the circumstances of the restraint
so far as they are known to the affiant.^ As the general rules
governing the granting and the service and return of this
writ are those which obtain in connection with the ordinary
writ of habeas corpus, no elaboration of them is necessary in
this connection.'
§ 289. Attendance of witnesses before legislative bodies.
As a rule the power to summon witnesses and to take testi-
mony is considered to be inherent in legislative bodies for all
purposes within the scope of the constitutional powers pos-
sessed b}'' those bodies, and the refusal or neglect of a witness
to appear or to answer proper questions is a contempt for
which he may be arrested and imprisoned.* The power of
the federal congress to commit for contempt should be strictly
confined within the constitutional functions of that body.
Ifeither house is a court of justice, as was the English parlia-
ment originallj', but either house may exert certain powers
under the constitution ; as, for example, it may decide con-
tested elections and the qualifications of its members or may
impeach certain public officials. If then congress exceeds
these powers and summons a witness to testify to a matter
which is exclusively for judicial investigation, it has no power
to commit for contempt of its process if the witness refuse to
answer questions.*
1 Ex parte Marmaduke, 91 Mo. 238, SKilbourn v. Thompson, 105 U. S.
251. 168, 181-205. See, also, In re Pac.
n Greenl. on Ev., §313. " R. E. Com., 33 Fed. Eep. 251-353;
3 See Church on Habeas Corpus. Ex parte Dalton, 44 Ohio St. 150.
<1 Kent, 336, 337; 2 Story, Const., As to the power of a city council to
§§ 305-317; InreGunn, 50 Kan. 125; commit a witness for contempt, see
Burnham v. Morrissey, 14 Gray, 226 ; Whitcomb's Case, 120 Mass. 133.
Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204;
Yards' Case, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 41.
CHAPTEE XXIL
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.
300. Classes of persons incompe-
tent.
301. Parties as witnesses at com-
mon law.
802. Testimony of party admissi-
ble when his connection
with action no longer ex-
ists.
,803. What constitutes interest in
the event.
804. Exceptions to the common-
law rule — The answer as
evidence for the defendant
in equity.
305. Competency of parties as wit-
nesses in equity — The em-
ployment and effect of a
bill of discovery.
306. Defendant in criminal trial —
His competency as a wit-
ness.
307. Statutory competency of par-
ties as witnesses.
308. Incompetency of interested
persons to testify as to
transactions with deceased
or insane persons.
309. What are transactions with
decedents.
§ 310. Persons interested — Their
statutory incompetency.
311. Incompetency of parties to
negotiable instruments to
impeach them.
313. Com petency of counsel as wit-
nesses.
313. Competency of Judges as wit-
nesses.
314. Competency of arbitrators as
witnesses in an action on
the award.
315. Definition and form of oath
and affirmation.
316. Incompetency because of a
lack of religious belief.
317. Incompetency of insane per-
sons as witnesses.
318. Deaf mutes as witnesses.
319. Children as witnesses.
330. Witnesses rendered incompe-
tent by conviction of in-
famous crimes — The eflEect
of pardon.
Statutory regulation of the
competency of witnesses
convicted of crime.
Statutes construed.
Accomplices.
331.
323.
323.
334. Corroboration of accomplices.
§ 300. Classification of persons incompetent as witnesses.
The common law, proceeding upon the theory that the preven-
tion of perjury was of paramount importance to the possible
ascertainment of truth, rejected absolutely certain classes of
persons as witnesses. Thus, the parties to the suit and all
other persons who had any pecuniary interest in the litiga-
tion; such persons as from a deficiency or peculiarity of ro-
§ 300.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 425
ligious belief were presumed to be regardless of the sanctity
of an oath, and persons of imperfect mental powers, as luna-
tics, children and idiots, were incompetent as witnesses. It is
clear that by rejecting the testimony of the parties and of
persons interested in the event of the suit two most valuable
sources of information were lost. Those who have a direct
and actual pecuniary interest in a transaction, or who are
connected by ties of relationship or interest with the parties
to it, are most likely to be best informed, not only as to the
main transaction, but as to its most trivial details. It was
considered, however, that a grave danger existed that inter-
ested persons would perjure themselves if allowed to testify
as witnesses, and to obviate the danger of such corrupting in-
fluences altogether they were absolutely excluded from the
witness stand. That interested persons when summoned as
witnesses would always commit perjury was not the basis of
their rejection. But the very great probability and even cer-
tainty that some would or might do so were considered suffi-
cient to incapacitate them as a class from testifying.
The arbitrary character of this common-law rule rendering
the parties and persons interested incompetent as witnesses
was recognized even by those authorities and cases in which
it was formulated. It was clearly seen that interest, lilie bias,
is only valid as an objection to a witness when it is urged in
connection with the credibility of his testimony, and it was
admitted that it was absurd to permit a witness to testify, no
matter how friendly or hostile he might be towards the party
who called him, while, at the same time, excluding the testi-
mony of other witnesses equally well and perhaps better in-
formed because it happened that they had a slight pecuniary
interest in the result of the suit. The early writers do not at-
tempt to justify the rule on logical grounds, but, with the con-
servatism of the common law, they merely point out that the
rule being firmly settled from early times ought, in order to
obtain stability and certainty in the law, to be very strictly
adhered to, and that to abrogate it would certainly open the
door to a vast amount of perjury on the part of the majority
of interested witnesses. In the quaint language of Baron
Gilbert,! the rule was designed " to preserve infirmity from a
1 1 Gilb. Ev., g§ 220, 224.
426 COMPETENOT OF WITNESSES. [§ 301.
snare and integrity from suspicion." Modern statutory legis-
lation, while f ull3'^ recognizing the element of interest as it
affects the credibility of testimony, has swept away this arbi-
trary exclusion of parties and interested persons as witnesses.
"While it is possible that perjury in court has been sensibly
increased by these enactments, it is very clear, on the other
hand, that the avenues and means for the ascertainment of
truth in judicial proceedings have been wonderfully widened
and augmented thereby.
§ 301. Parties incompetent as witnesses at common law.
Though the common-law rule that a party to the record is
not competent as a witness in his own behalf has been abol-
ished in this country, it maybe useful to consider some of the
cases in which it was employed at common law, as the ele-
ment of interest is still an objection to the competency of a
witness in certain cases where he is called upon to testify
against the representatives of a deceased person. Neither a
real nor a nominal party to an action could at common law
be compelled by his adversary to testify against himself,^ so
that where a party desired to interrogate his opponent he had
to resort to the expensive and cumbrous equitable proceed-
ing of a bill of discovery.^ As the admissions of a party
have always been admissible against him, he might, at com-
mon law, consent to testify voluntarily for his adversarj',
though it seems that where several persons were joined as co-
plaintiffs none of them could, where the interest of all was
joint and not several merel}^ testify in behalf of the defend-
ant, unless with the consent of those who were associated as
plaintiffs with him.'
In respect to the competency of members of a private cor-
poration as witnesses in suits to which the latter is a party, a
distinction was made at common law between business or
trading corporations and those incorporated solely for relig-
ious or charitable purposes. In the case of business corpora-
tions the vested pecuniary interest of the member or stock-
holder was considered sufficient to render him incompetent to
1 Rex V. Woburn, 10 East, 395. mere nominal party could not con-
2 See post, g 305. sent to testify for his opponent witb-
3 Scott V. Lloyd, 12 Pet. 149; 1 out the consent of the real party.
Greenl. on Ev., §§ 353, 354. So a Frear v. Evertson, 20 Johns. 142.
■§,302.] OOMPETENOY OF WITNESSES. 427
testify for or against the corporation.^ The members of char-
itable corporations, on the other hand, were competent wit-
nesses in any action in which the latter was a party.^
At common law an inhabitant of a public municipal or
^wasz-municipal corporation was incompetent (because of in-
terest) as a witness in any action to which the corporation was
a party.' But the interest which the residents of a municipal
or public corporation have as such in the determination of the
action is so extremgly small and contingent, and the necessity
for their testimony to prevent a miscarriage of justice is so
urgent, that this rule was often relaxed. It is now abrogated
expressly or by implication both in England and in the United
States. So, generally, the shareholders in a private corpora-
tion are now competent as witnesses for or against the corpo-
ration.
§ 302. Testimony of party admissible when his connec-
tion with action no longer exists. — At common law one of
several defendants or plaintiffs jointly sued became a compe-
tent witness for the others immediately upon the severance
of his connection with them as litigants. In civil proceedings
a distinction was made at common law between actions ex
contractu and those which are ex delicto, so far as the compe-
tency of a party as a witness is concerned, where his connection
with the litigation no longer existed. In an action on a joint
contract a defendant against whom judgment had been taken
by default was not allowed to testify on the trial, for the reason
that the value of such a judgment would of course depend
upon the ultimate decision of the action for or against his
joint obligors.* But this rule is not universal. There are many
decisions which sustain the proposition that at common law
a party whom it is alleged is interested jointly with others in
the subject-matter of the contract which is sued on could
testify as a witness for or against his alleged associates imme-
i City Council v. King, 4 McCord, Bloodgood v. James, 13 Johns. 285,
48? ; Foundry v. Hovey, 31 Pick, and oases cited in 1 Greenl. on Ev.,
453. ■ § 331.
2 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 333 and cases < Thornton v. Blaisdell, 37 Me. 190 ;
cited. Mills v. Lee, i. Hill, 519 ; Schermer-
'Odiorne v. Wade, 8 Pick. 518; horn v. Schermerhorn, 1 Wend. 119;
Eex V. London, 3 Lev. 331. Cf. 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 355.
428 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 303.
diately upon his ceasing by his default to be a party to the
record,' or by a nolle prosequi entered as to him upon his plea
of infancy, mental incapacity to contract, release or other-
matter which will result in his discharge from liability.^
A joint defendant in an action of tort becomes at common
law a competent witness for either party where a judgment
is taken against him by default, upon the ground that, though
jointly sued, there can be no contribution among wrong-doers,
and that his liability being ascertained he is no longer an in-
terested party.'
§ 303. What constitutes an interest in the event.— By the
rules of the common law persons interested in the event of
the action were, with the parties themselves, incompetent as
witnesses to testify therein, their incompetency being based
■ upon the extreme probability which was supposed to exist
tliat they would testify falsely.* The incompetency of inter-
ested persons has been almost universally abolished hy stat-
ute, except that in certain cases all persons interested in the
event of tiie action are forbidden to testify to any transaction
they may have had with the other party to the action where
such party is deceased or insane.* The interest which will
disqualify a witness at common law must be a legal, substan-
tial, present, vested and ex parte interest. Its amount is not
material. Because of the difficulty of ascertaining how much
the witness would be influenced by his interest, the law recog-
nizes no gradations but excludes the evidence of all interested
persons, however small their interest may be. The mere be-
lief or expectation of the witness that he may gain or lose
by the result of the trial, or that he is morally bound to reim-
burse the losing party, or his inclination from friendship or
relationship towards the party, will not render him incom-
petent.*' So the witness will be disqualified only where he
1 Berry v. Stevens, 71 Me. 503; who has suffered judgment by de-
Manchester V. Moore, 19 N. H. 564. fault may influence the amount of
2 Blake v. Ladd, 10 N. H. 190 ; damages recoverable, it would seem
l^inor V. Bank, 1 Pet. 74;1 Greenl. on to be incompetent at common law.
Ev., §g 355-357. Thorpe v. Barber, 5 M., G, & S. 675.
3 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 357, citing * See ajiie, g 300. ,
Ward V. Hayden, 3 Esp. 552; Had- 5 gee §§ 808-310.
rick V. Heslop, 13 Jur. 600. In so » 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 386.
far as the testimony of a defendant
§ 30i.J COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 429
is interested in the event or result of the particular action.
That the rule of law which is decided in the case in which ho
testifies will render him liable in another action or under like
circumstances does not make him interested in the event un-
less the judgment in the earlier action will be evidence for or
against him in the later.^
At common law a person is interested in the event where
he is legally bound to indemnify a party against the conse-
quences of a fact which is essential to the judgment. So, gen-
erally, where the title to real or personal property is in issue,
or where the quality or wholesomeness of articles of food or
other merchandise is involved, the vendor or other person
who stands in the position of a guarantor to one of the par-
ties is interested in the event of the suit.^
§ 304. Exceptions to the common-law rhle — The an-
swei- as evidence for tlie defendant in eqiiitj'.— The com-
mon-law rule by which a party was incompetent as a witness
in his own behalf was subject to some exceptions even prior
to its modification by statutory enactment. So where inde-
pendent proof is given that the adverse party wrongfully
intermeddled with or converted or negligently lost property
committed to him as bailee, the owner was permitted to tes-
tify to its condition and value, for from the necessity of
the case these facts are usually known to him alone.' So be-
cause of paramount necessity a party was allowed to testify
to the loss of a missing writing as a foundation for offeHng
secondary evidence of its contents, or he was permitted to
take a supplementarj^ oath to the correctness of his entries in
his books of account in cases where, from the nature of
things, neither party could claim any knowledge but that
which was contained in the books. When, however, a party
was permitted at common law to testify to the loss 'of and the
search for a deed, independent evidence was always required
U Greenl. on Ev., § 389, citing Steers v. Carwardine, 8 C. & P.
Stewart v. Kip, 5 Johns. 256; Bent 570; Biss v. Mountain, 1 M. & Rob.
V. Baker, 3 T. R. 37 ; Hoyt v. Wild- 303 ; Baxter v. Graham, 5 Watts,
fire, 3 Johns. 518; Evans v. Eaton, 7 418; Heermance v. Vernoy, 6 Johns.
Wheat. 356; Evans v. Hettich, 7 id. 5; Hale v. Smith, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 416.
453; O wings v. Speed, 5 id. 433; sChildrens v. Saxby, 1 Vern. 207;
Jackson v. Nelson, 6 Cow. 348. 1 Greenl. on Ev., §g 348-350; Snow
3 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 397, citing v. Railroad Co., 13 Met. 44.
430 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES^ [§ 304.
to show that the deed had at one time existed.^ So at com-
mon law the testimony of a party was competent to prove
all preliminary allegations not directly involved in the main
issue ; as, for example, that a witness was deceased, or could
not be produced after a diligent search had been made.^
The sworn answer of the respondent to a bill in equity
constituted another exception to the incompetency of a partj'
as a witness. "Where his opponent had by such means pro-
cured evidence for his own use, and by implication thus ad-
mitted the veracity of the adverse party, it was considered
only just that the party who was thus compelled to furnish
evidence against himself should receive the benefit of any-
thing which he may have said in his own behalf.' But, on the
other hand, the admissions of the defendant contained in his
answer are conclusive upon him.* It should be noted, how-
ever, that the replies to the interrogatories which are contained
in the answer do not constitute evidence for the defendant
where the answer is verified only on information and belief.*
As the denials or replies of the respondent constitute evidence
for him in equity, it follows that for the plaintiff to overcome
their force the averments in the bill which are denied or not
expiressly admitted* must be substantiated by the testimony
of two witnesses, or by that of one witness corroborated by
circumstances.'
1 Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 240; v. Perry, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 600;
Poiguard v. Smith, 8 Pick. 278; Hardy v. Summers, 10 Gill & J.
Page V. Page, 15 id. 368. (Md.) 316. See § 14.
2 Forbes v. Wale, 1 W. Bl. 532; ^Langdell, Eq. PI., § 84; Home
Cook V. Remington, 6 Mod. 237. Ins. Co. v. Myers, 93 111. 271; Miller
3 3 Story, § 1528; Patterson v. v. Payne, 4 Bradw, (111.) 112.
Soott(Ill., 1893), 81 N. E. Rep. 433
Nul ton's Appeal, 103 Pa. St. 286
Johnson v. Crippen, 62 Miss. 597
Rick V. Neitzy, 1 Mackey (D. C), 21
Bird V. Styles, 18 N. J. Eq. 297
5 Allen V. O'Donnell, 28 Fed. Rep.
17 ; Berry v. Sawyer, 19 id. 286.
6 Cushman v. Bonfield, 36 111. App.
436 ; Peeler v. Lathrop, 48 Fed. Rep.
780.
Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 '"Unless the complainant have
U. S. 47; Slessinger v. Bucking- two witnesses, or one witness and
ham, 17 Fed. Rep. 454; Hartley v. corroborating circumstances, he will
Mathews (Ala,, 1893), 11 S. Rep. 452; not be entitled to relief. The rea-
Lee V. Baldwin, 10 Ga. 208; Lyerly son is, by calling upon the respond-
V. Wheeler, 3 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 599; ent to answer, the complainant ad-
Miles v. Miles, 32 N. H. 147; Jones mits that the answer will be evidence
§ 305.] COMPETENOr OF WITNESSES. 431
i
This rule requiring the plaintiff to overcome the answer of
the defendant in equity by a preponderance of witnesses is
not invoked where the answer is not sworn to by the respond-
ent, even though a verification has been waived by the plaint-
iff/ or when, because of the fact that the defendant is. a cor-
poration, no sworn answer can be procured,^ or in the case
of any replies or denials in the answer which are not respon-
sive to the interrogatories or to the allegations of the bill,' or
where the defendant on being permitted to testify orally con"
tradicts the statements in his sworn answer,* or where the
denial is simply a denial of a conclusion of law.'
§ 305. Competency of the parties as witnesses in equity —
The employment and eflfect of a bill of discovery. — Prior to
the enactment of the statutes regulating the competency of
parties as witnesses their testimony was receivable in equity
with a great deal more liberality than in the courts of common
law. The chancellor could, even if discovery was not required,
in the exercise of his discretion issue an order for the exam-
ination of the defendant upon the application of the plaintiff
and upon proof by affidavit that his evidence was material.*
The usual course, however, was for the plaintiff, where he
wished to procure the evidence of one or more of the defend-
ants, to include in his bill a prayer that the defendants
should be required to make discovery, *. e., a disclosure upon
equal to the testimony of any other v. Linville, 10 Humph. 163 ; Bank v.
witness, so that he cannot prevail Gerry, 5 Pet. 99-112.
unless the balance of proof is in his ^ Patterson v. Gaines, 6 How. 550 ;
favor. To turn the scales he must Rudy v. Austin, 56 Ark. 73; Atvvood
at least have circumstances which v. Harrison, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.)
corroborate such single adverse wit- ^29; Lane v. Marshall, 65 Vt. 85;
ness." The court, in Tobey v. Leon- Sears v. Mason's Adm'r (Va., 1890),
ard, 2 Wall. 403. See, also. United 10 S. E. Rep. 529; Cloud v. Calhoun,
States V. Ferguson, 54 Fed. Rep. 28; 10 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 358; Green v.
Meyer V. Gullinan, 105 111. 372; Brook Vardiman, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 324;
v. Silver, 5 Del. Ch. 7. Cartlege v. Cutliff , 29 Ga. 758 ; Fisher
1 Throckmorton v. Throckmorton, v. Porch, 10 N. J. Eq. 243; Ingersoll
15 S. E. Rep. 289; Pecke v. Hunter, v. Stiger, 46 id. 511; Coleman v.
86 Va. 768 ; Bartlett v. Gale, 4 Paige Ross, 46 Pa. St. 180.
(N. Y.), 503; United States v. Work- < Morris v. White, 36 N. J. Eq. 324.
ingman's Council, 54 Fed. Rep. 994. » Gaines v. Russ, 20 Fla. 157; Dei-
2Langdell, Eq. PI., § 78; McLard mel v. Brown, 136 111. 586.
SAshtonv. Parker, 14 Sim. 633.
432 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 305.
•oath of the truth of the facts in the case so far as they knew
them. This prayer is usually inserted in every bill which is
properly framed, the specific term " bills of discovery " being
reserved for thiose bills the sole object of which is to obtain
■evidence by discovery which is to be employed in a proceed-
ing in a court of law.^ Interrogatories supporting and relat-
ing to the principal and material allegations of the bill are
usually appended to it, and these, if they are consistent with
the averments in the bill, should be specifically and respon-
sively answered by the defendant.' The defendant, in case
he is desirous of avoiding discovery, must plead or demur to
the bill. If he elects to make discovery he should answer
with particularity and preciseness,' for, if he demur or plead,
the truth of all averments in the bill which are not expressly
traversed are taken as true pro confesso and the averments
are then admissible as evidence for the plaintifif.* The defend-
ant is not compellable to give discovery in any case where, if
he were a witness, he might claim to be privileged from an-
swering the question put to him; as, for example, where his
answer would tend to render him liable to a criminal prose-
cution or to punishment for crime,' or where the information
which is sought had been communicated to the defendant
while he was acting in a confidential capacity, as attorney,
•physician or priest.^
As an unsworn answer cannot be considered as evidence for
the defendant, and as the plaintiff is not required to overcome
1 8 Story's Eq., g 1489. Eq. PI., § 846 ; Hill v. Gravy, 7 Ark.
2 Mechanics' Bank v. Lynn, 1 Pet. 536 ; Jones v. Wing, Harr. Ch. (Mich. )
(U. S.) 376; Miller v. Saunders, 17 301.
Ga. 92; Mechanics' Bank v. Levy, 3 SLangdell's Eq. PI., § 69; 1 Dan.
Paige (N. Y.), 606; Bead v. Wood- Ch. PI. & Pr., pp. 563,567; Butler v.
ruffe, 24 Beav. 431 ; Parkinson v. Catling, 1 Root (Conn.), 310 ; Wolf
Trousdale, 3 Scam. (111.) 367; War- v. Wolf, 3 Har. & G. (Md.) 382;
ing V. Suydam, 4 Edw. (N. Y.) 363; Livingston v. Tompkins, 4 Johns.
Shotwell v. Struble, 31 N. J. Eq. 31 ; (N. Y.) Ch. 415 ; Leigh v. Everheart,
Brooks V. Byam, 1 Story, 398; Woo- 4 T. B. Hon. (Ky.) 379; Northwest-
ten V. Burch, 3 Md. Ch. 190; M. E. ern Bank v. Nelson, 1 Gratt. (Va.)
Church V. Jaques, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 108 ; Dwinal v. Smith, 25 Me. 379.
Ch. 65, cited in 1 Pom. Eq. Jur., ei Dan. Ch. PI. & Pr., pp. 573,
§ 204. 574; 1 Pom. Eq. Jur., § 203 ; Story's
3 Walker v. Walker, 3 Ga. 303. Eq. PI., § 846.
^Langdell's Eq. PI., § 93; Story's
§ 306.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 433
its force as such by the production of two witnesses or of one
witness and corroborative circumstances, it follows that such
an answer cannot be excepted to upon the ground of the in-
suBBcienoy of the discovery contained in it.* Where, however,
the defendant undertakes to make discovery on oath, he will
be required to make full discovery, and, in case he shall refuse
to do so, he may be coerced into making further and full dis-
covery by the chancellor.''
§ 306. Defendant in criminal trial — His competency as
a witness. — At common law the defendant in a criminal pros-
ecution was incompetent as a w^itness in his own behalf because
of his interest in the result, nor could he be compelled to tes-
tify against a person jointly indicted with him until he was
discharged from custody or convicted. But where one of
several jointly indicted pleaded guilt}^ and received his pun-
ishment, he was held competent as a witness in behalf of his
fellows who denied their guilt.' By statute in nearly all the
states of the Union and in the federal courts as well, the ac-
cused may now, in all cases, testify as a witness in his own
behalf.* The statutory changes through which the incompe-
tency of the defendant in a criminal prosecution to testify in
his own behalf has been removed have rendered a defendant
a competent witness in behalf of those indicted with him.
But generally accomplices are competent witnesses for each
other, though concerned in the same crime, only when sepa-
1 1 Dan. Ch. PI. & Pr. 760, u. 3 ; as a party or otherwise, or by reason
Smith V. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., of his having been convicted of any
2 Tenn. Ch. 599; Bulkley v. Van crime, but such interest or convic-
Wyck, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 536; United ' tion may be showii for the purpose
States V. McLaughlin, 24 Fed. Rep. of affecting his credibility ; provided,
833. « however, that a defendant in any
^Satterwhitev.Davenport, lOEich. criminal case or proceeding shall
(S. C.) Eq. 305. only at his own request be deemed a
s Rex V. Fletcher, 1 Stra, 633. competent witness, and his neglect
*The statutes of all the states are to testify shall not create any pre-
substantially the same in principle, sumption against him, nor shall the
That of Illinois may be given as an court permit any reference or corn-
example. " No person shall be dis- ment tobemadetooruponsuchneg-
qualified as a witness in any crim- leot." Illinois Crira. Code, § 426.
inal trial or proceeding by reason of The statutes are given in Abb. Grim,
his interest in the event of the same Brief, § 387.
28
434 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 307.
rately indicted.^ Hence where several axe jointly indicted and
jointly tried, whether the defendant testifies in behalf of
another defendant, or when he volunteers as a witness for
the state against his associates, i. e., turns state's evidence, it
is necessary that the proceedings should have come to an end
so far as he is concerned either by his condemnation or ac-
quittal.^
The fact that the trial of a defendant had been postponed, or
that he was to have a separate trial, was formerly deemed in-
sufficient to render him competent as a witness for or against
others jointly indicted with him.' This rule, however, is in
modern practice and by statute somewhat relaxed, and a defend-
ant who is indicted jointly with another person but who has
been granted a separate trial may testify against but not for
the other defendant prior to the final disposition of the charge
against himself.* On the other hand, if the state has closed
its case without producing evidence of the guilt of any de-
fendant which is sufficient to go to the jury, it is the duty of
the court to direct a verdict of acquittal as to him, and he is
then competent as a witness for the other party.^
§ 307. Statutory competency of parties as witnesses. —
A party to the record is now generall)', if not universally, both
competent as a witness in his own behalf and compellable to
testify for the adverse party.* This important change has
been brought about by statutory enactment in the different
states, but as a general or detailed account of the numerous
1 United States V. Hunter, ICranch, Tenn. 923;iStat6T. Steifel, 106 Mo.
446 ; McKenzie V. State, 24 Ark. 636. 129; Sparks v. Com., 89 Ky. 644;
2 South V. State, 86 Ala. 617 ; State Allen v. State, 10 Ohio St. 287 ; State
V. Minor (Mo., 1893), 22 S. W. Eep. v. Thaden, 43 Minn. 33."); Carroll v.
1085; Ballard v. State (Fla., 1893), State, 5 Neb. 31. Cf. State v. Math-
13 S. Eep. 865: Com. v. Marsh, 10 ews, 98 Mo. 13.5; Biiiios v.. State
Pick. 57; People v. Bell, 10 Johns. (Tex., 1889), 11 S. W. Rep. 679; Day
95; McGinnis v. State (Wyo., 1893), v. State, 27 Tex. App. 143. He&post,
81 Pao. Rep. 978; State v. Jackson, §g 323, 324.
106 Mo. 174; State v. Miller, 100 Mo. » Cochran v. Ammnn, 16111.316;
606. Seepos^, §330, for accomplices. Beasley v. Bradley, 3 Swan (Tenn.),
3 1 Greenl. on Ev., g 363. 180. And see cases cited in last two
* McGinnis V. State (Wye, 1893), notes.
31 Pao. Rep. 978; State v. Barrows, « In re Chiles, 23 Wall. 157; Dogge
76 Me. 401 ; Benson v. United States, v. State, 27 Neb. 273.
146 U. ,S. 345; Richards v. State, 91
§ 308.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 435
and variant statutes on this subject is impossible in a work of
this scope, the reader is referred to the local statute of his own
state and to the cases which are cited in the notes.^ Generally
by these statutes the jury are empowered to take into consid-
eration the interest of the witness in the suit as an element
bearing upon the credibility of his evidence,^ though no in-
ference should be drawn by them from the fact that the party
does not exercise his statutory right to testify in his own be-
half.'
The competency of witnesses in the federal courts is also
regulated by a statute which provides in substance that the
laws of the state within the limits of which the federal court
is located shall be its rules of decision as to competency " in
trials at common law, in equity and admiralty." The compe-
tency of witnesses in criminal trials in federal courts is not,
therefore, regulated by the statutes of the state in which they
are located, but by the common law of the state when it was
admitted into the Union, modified of course by the federal
statutes regulating criminal proceedings and the competency
of witnesses therein.*
§ 308. Statutory incompetency of parties to testify as
to transactions with deceased or insane persons.^ Some-
times parties and interested witnesses are made competent by
statute without any exception. In some of the states of the
iThe statutes mentioned in the neoticut, Gen. St. 1888, §1094; Vir-
text are as follows : Maine, R. S. 1881, ginia, Code 1887, § 3345; North Cart,
p. 707, § 993 ; Massachusetts, Pub. lina, Code 1883, § 589 ; Florida, Dig.
St. 1883, p. 987, §18; Rhode Island, 1881, p. 518; Georgia, Code 1883,
Pub. St. 1883, p. 587, § 33 ; New York, § 854 ; Mississippi, Code 1880, § 1599 ;
Code C. P., 838 ; Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Code 1888, § 605 ; Illinois,
Bright. Dig., p. 727, § 20; Maryland, R. S., p. 681, § 2; Kansas, Gen. Stat.
Pub. Laws 1888, p. 685, S§ 1-4; West 1889, §4414; Nebraska, Comp. St.
Virginia, Code, p. 806, § 33; South 1889, § 899; Nevada, Comp. St. 1885,
Carolina, Code, § 400; Alabama, §8399.
Code 1886, §2765; Tennessee, Code SMeeteer v. Man. R. R. Co., 63
1884, §4563; Ohio, R. S. 1890, §5240; Hun. 533; Douglass v. FuUerton, 7
Iowa, Const. 1857, art. 1, §4; Indi- 111. App. 103; State v. Rush, 95 Mo.
ana, R. S. 1881, § 496 ; Michigan, 199 ; Harrington v. Hamburg (Iowei,
How. Ann. St. 1882, p. 7544; Minne- 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 201.
Bota, Gen. Stat. 1878, p. 792, § 9; 3 Moore v. Wright, 90 111. 470. See
Montana, Comp. St. 1887, § 647; posi, § 346a.
Arizona, 1887, § 1831 ; New Hamp- < Logan v. United States, 144 U. S,
shire, Gen. Laws, 1878, p. 531 ; Con- 263; 12 S. Ct. (B17.
436 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 308.
Union, however, it has been enacted that no party or person
interested in the event shall be a competent witness against
an executor, administrator or the committee of a lunatic or
inebriate, while elsewhere such an interested witness is incom-
petent only so far as he is called to testify to a personal trans-
action with the deceased person or lunatic,' or "as to a matter
of fact occurring before the death of the deceased person,"*
or to "matters equally within the knowledge" of deceased.'
The present policy of the law is to admit freely interested
persons as witnesses. Nevertheless it is deemed expedient,
where the mouth of one part}'^ to a transaction is closed by
death, that the other should also be silenced. The aim and
end of these statutes are to put both parties upon an equalitj\*
But the provisions of these statutes may be waived expressly
or by implication by the representative of the deceased per-
son. So it is often provided by statute that if the representa-
tive voluntarily produces testimony to a conversation or trans-
action which was had with the deceased, either by going on the
stand himself,* or by producing the testimony of the deceased
taken by deposition,* or at a former trial,' the other party or
any interested person is thereby rendered competent.^ These
1 Illinois R. S. 1880, ch. 51; Colo- v. Hart, 39 111. App. 360, the statute
rado Gen. Laws, §§3644, 3647; New was applied in an action ' against a
York Code Civ, Pro., § 829. firm, one partner of which was a
2 Code Cal., § 1880. survivor of the old firm with which
' How. St. Mich., g 7545. the transaction was had.
< Abbott's Trial Evidence, p. 61, 6 Allen v. Chouteau, 103 Mo. 309;
citing cases. Nixon v. McKinney, 105 N. C. 23;
5 Cousins V. Jackson, 53 Ala. 365; Munroe v. Napier, 53 Ga. 383; Dun-
Mitchell V. Cochran, 10 N, Y. S. 545; lop v. Dunlop, 94 Mich. 11.
Hard v. Ashley, 117 N. Y. 606; 23 'Taylor v. Bunker (Mich., 188S),
N. E. Rep. 606; Wilcox v. Corwin, 36 N. W. Rep. 166; Stone v. Hunt
38 N. E, Rep. 500; 117 N. Y. 500; (Mo., 1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 454. Cf.
Jackson v. Jones, 74 Tex. 104 ; Wil- Walker v. Taylor, 43 Vt. 612 ; Hay-
cox V. Corwin, 50 Hun, 425; Nay v. den v. Grille, 43 Mo. App. 1.
Curley, 113 N. Y. 575. Where a sur- 8Munn v. Owens, 8 Dill. 477; Com.
viving partner in an action brought Ice Co. v. Kiefer, 86 111. App. 466 ;
against him on a firm note volun- Martin v. Martin, 118 Ind. 327;
tarily testified to that transaction, Haskell v. Henry, 74 Me. 197; Potts
the plaintiff was permitted to testify v. Mayer, 86 N. Y, 303; Williamson
in his own behalf to facts and cir- v. State, 59 Miss. 335 ; MoCarlin v.
cumstances in rebuttal. Wiley v. Traphagen, 45 N. J. Eq. 365; Parris
Morse, 30 Mo, App. 266. In Foster v. McNeal (Neb., 1893), 55 N. W.
§;308.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 437
statutes, it is held, do not prevent the representative from
calling a party or an interested witness to testify for the es-
tate,'.though this fact alone, that such a witness testifies for
the representative,^ or testifying in behalf of the opposite party
is cross-examined ' by the representative, does not, where the
prohibition against testifying is absolute, waive the right of
the latter to have his testimony stricken out.
In a New York case * it has been held that the statute ex-
cluding evidence of a personal transaction was not meant to
abrogate the common-law rule or principle of evidence that
where one party calls a witness, and, in examining him, brings
out a particular part of a communication or transaction, the
other party may bring out the whole communication or trans-
action so far as it has any bearing upon, or so far as it qualifies
or explains, that specific part to which the examination was
directed. So, in accordance with this principle, it has been
held that where a representative of a deceased party examines
the surviving party as to a personal transaction or conversa-
tion with the testator or intestate, the party thus examined is
thereby enabled to testify, as a witness in his own behalf, to
the whole transaction concerning which he has been exam-
ined,' but not to other transactions or conversations.* This
result follows only where the executor testifies directly to the
transaction, but not where he testifies to facts from which the
existence or non-existence of the personal transaction or of
some incident thereof may be inferred.' In such a case it has
Eep. 223. Thus writings signed by 612; Canady v. Johnson, 40 Iowa,
the deceased have been admitted to 587; Hopkins -v. Bowers, 108 N. C.
rebut evidence of his verbal declara- 298.
tions given by the representative. 'Achilles v. Achilles (111., 1891), 28
Smith V. Christopher, 16 Abb. Pr. N. E. Rep. 45. If the direct exam-
(N. S.)333. See further in support of ination is excluded the cross-exam-
the text, Kenyon v. Pierce, 17 R. I. ination goes with it.
794; Sherer v. Ingerman, 110 Ind. < Nay v. Curley, 113 N. Y. 575.
442; Trahern v. Colburn, 63 Md. « Nay v. Curley, 113 N. Y. 578;
104; Rice v. Daly, 6G Hun, 628; Michigan Sav. Bank v. Butler (Mich.,
Haines v. Watts (N. J., 1893), 26 Atl. 1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 253.
Rep. 573. Contra, Louman v. Au- « Copeland v. Koontz, 125 Ind. 126 ;
brey, 73 111. 619; Blood v. Fairbanks, Butz v. Schwartz, 33 111. App. 156.
eO Cal. 420. '' Bowers v. State, 19 N. Y. State
1 Chase v. Bvoy, 51 Cal. 618. Rep. 936.
2Herrington v. Winn, 14 N. Y. S.
438 ' COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 308.
beeu held that, where the adverse party may testify directly
to the transaction itself which is gone into by the direct evi-
dence of the executor, he cannot testify to any fact which
would contradict inferences created by his evidence.^ The
executor must have testified voluntarily in his own behalf in
order to let in the evidence of the surviving party.^ The
statute is not applicable when a defendant to a suit in equity
dies after his sworn answer^ containing matter which is ad-
missible in evidence has been filed, or where a party dies after
his adversary has been examined,* or where the executor is
suing ion his own title.^
The courts have adopted liberal rules of construction in con-
struing the meaning of the words which indicate representa-
tion or succession which occur in statutes providing that
parties or interested witnesses shall not be competent to tes-
tify in actions by or against the representatives or heirs of a
decedent.^ Thus, it has been held that the word " representa-
tive " includes heirs,' legatees * and devisees.' The general
principle is that so long as the judgment will affect, whether
favorably or otherwise, the value of the estate of the deceased
'person, the relation in which the representative stands to it or
the form in which he sues, whether individually ^'' or as a rep-
resentative, is not material."
The true end and object of these statutes are to close the
mouth of a party to a contract or other transaction when-
ever the other party is dead or otherwise incapacitated from
I Lewis V. Merritt, 113 N. Y. 388. ' Ferbrache v. Ferbrache, 110 111.
scorning v. Walker, 100 N. Y. 210; Ellis v. Stewart (Tex., 1894), 24
550 ; Eankin v. Hannan, 38 Ohio St. S. W. Rep. 585.
438. 8 Curtis v. Wilson (Tex., 1893), 21
3 Sweet V. Parker, 22 N. J. Eq. S. W. Rep. 787.
455 ; Lanning v. Lanning, 17 id. 228. » Jass v. Mohn (R. I., 1893), 26 Atl.
But c/. Beckhaus v. Ladner, 48 id. Rep. 787.
152. 10 Louis V. Easton, 50 Ala. 470.
* Marlatt V. Warwick, 18 N. J. Eq. nHollister v. Young, 41 Vt. 456.
108. It has been held, however, that " rep-
5 Hodges V. Carvill, 44 N. J. L, 456. resentative " should be strictly oon-
6 Marshall v. Peck, 91 111. 187; struedassignifyingonly aparty who
Dewey v. Goodenough, 56 Barb. 54 ; represents another on the record.
Green v, Edick, 56 N. Y. 696: Lloyd Crimniins v. Crimmins, 43 N. J. Eq.
V. Hollenback (Mich. , 1893), 57 N. W. 87.
Rep. 110.
§ 308.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 439
testifj'ing in his own behalf, and where his rights have passed
by his own act or by the act of the law to some other person
who represents Tiim or his estate in the action, but whose
sources of original information as regards the transaction in
question are so inadequate as compared with the other and sur-
viving party that the representative is presumed to be utter!}'
unable to testify as to any of the details of the transaction.^
In case the statute is in its form a proviso in or a mere ex-
ception from a statute abolishing the incompetency of inter-
ested witnesses at common law, then, if the party or interested
person would have been competent at common law as a wit-
ness against the estate of the deceased person, he is so against
l^is representative.^ But the evidence of an interested witness
is absolutely excluded by a statute of this sort which is an in-
dependent and affirmative enactment.^
These statutes have been construed liberally with the sole
object of placing the parties, living or deceased, upon an
equality so far as the evidence of the transaction is concerned.
The fact that one only of several persons jointly sued 4'e pre-
sents a deceased person is enough to render the adverse party
incompetent,^ though where ope of several joint parties, as,
for example, the members of a firm, is deceased, and it appears
that he took no active part in the transaction or had no knowl-
edge of it, his death before the suit is brought will not render
the actual parties to the transaction incompetent as witnesses.'
But under such circumstances, when the deceased partner had
full personal knowledge, and the surviving partner, though
equally bound, had very little, if any, knowledge of the trans-
action, the adverse party .will not be allowed to testify.*
1 Taylor v. Dusterberg, 109 Ind. s Mattoon v. Young, 45 N. Y. 696.
165; Paxton v. Paxton (W. Va., < Force v. Butcher, 33 N. J. Eq.
1894), 18 S. E. Eep. 705; Louis v. 453; iSodfrey v. Templeton (Tenn.,
Easton, 50 Ala. 470 ; Johnson v. 1888), 6 S. W. Rep. 47.
Heald, 33 Md. 358 ; Hubbell v. Hub- » Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank, 51
bell, 22 Ohio St. 208 ; Brown v. Md. 596 ; Fulkerson v. Thornton, 68
Brightman, 11 Allen (Mass.), 336. Mo. 468.
2 Fink V. Hey, 42 Mo. App. 295 ; 6 Wiley v. Morse, 30 Mo. App. 266 ;
Bates V. Forcht, 89 Mo. 120 ; Beach Campbell Banking Co. v. Cole
V. Pennell, 50 Me. 387; Sykes v. (Iowa, 1893), 56 N. W. Eep. 441;
Bates, 26 Iowa, 533; Angell v. Hes- Williams v. Perkins, 83 Mo. 879.
ter, 64 Mo. 142,
4:40
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.
[§ 309.
§ 309. What are transactions with decedents. — The
phrase "personal transaction," while not to be defined in the
abstract,^ does not include evidence of the birth of a deceased
person,^ or of his physical ' or mental condition,^ or an opinion
upon the value of services' rendered him or board or supplies
furnished him b}" the plaintiff or by some other person than
the witness,^ or evidence of the fact of a conversation having
been had. where this fact is collateral merely .'' An interested
witness ma}' testify to a conversation or transaction by the
deceased with a co-party to the record,' or with some third per-
son who is still living,' at which the witness was present and
overheard what was said, provided the witness did not him-
self participate in the conversation.^" So the general rule is
that the interested witness may testify to a transaction or
conversation which he had with an agent of the deceased who
is still alive " and who disclosed the name of the principal,'^ or
may testify that a contract on which he sues is in deceased's
1 Abbott's Trial Evidence, p. 68.
2 Matter of Paige, 62 Barb. 476.
3 In re McCarthy, 65 Hun, 624;
18 Kan. 406 ; Roberts v. Donovan, 70
Cal. 113.
8 Smith V. James, 34 N. W. Rep.
Sullivan v. Latimer (S. C, 1893), 17 309.
S. E. Rep. 701.
9 Hughey v. Eichelberger, 11 S. C.
« Williams' Bx'r v. Williams (Ky., 36; Lehigh v. Railroad Co., 41 N. J.
1890), 13 S. W. Rep. 250; Carey v. Eq. 187; Petrie v. Petrie, 6 N. Y. S.
Carey, 104 N. C. 171; Ducker v. 831; Stern v. Isman, 51 Hun, 224:
Whitson (N. C, 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. Connelly v. O'Conner, 17 N. Y. Stato
Rep. 261 ; In re Budlong, 7 N. Y. S.
229 ; Badger v. Badger, 88 N. Y. 559.
10 Connelly v. O'Conner, 17 N. Y.
State Rep. 261 ; Stern v. Eisner, 51
Hun, 224 ; Lobdell v. Lobdell, 30 N. Y.
854.
5 Lewis V. Meginnis, 30 Fla. 419.
sPritchard v. Pritchard, 69 Wis.
373.
TLoder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y.
339 ; Daniels v. Foster, 26 Wis. 286 ; 327 ; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 95 N. Y.
Hier v. Grant, 47 N. Y. 278. A 335 ; Petrie v. Petrie, 6 N. Y. S. 831 ;
party offering evidence which is Cary v. White, 59 N. Y. 336 ; Badger
prima facie objectionable under v. Badger, 88 N. Y. 836.
these statutes must show at the trial " Pratt v. Elkins, 80 N. Y. 198 ;
that as limited by him it does not Reherd v. Clem, 86 Va. 374; Cairns
infringe the statute. Rhodes v, v. Mooney, 62 Vt. 172; Orr v. Rode,
Pray, 36 Minn. 395. " A transaction 101 Mo. 387 (trustee of deceased
is whatever may be done by one trustor). Contra, Sutherland v. Ross,
person affecting another's rights, 140 Pa. St. 379; 31 Atl. Rep, 354; 28
and out of which a cause of action W. N. C. 17. Cf. Voss v. King, 3:i
may arise. A contract is a transac- W. Va. 336, where agent and princi-
tion, but a transaction is not always pal were both dead,
a contract." Scarborough v. Smith, '■^ Stamford v. Hornitz, 49 Ind. 525.
§ 309.]
OOMPETENOY OF WITNESSES.
441
handwriting/ though not that he saw him sign it. The sur-
viving party may testify as to his place of residence when he
had the transaction with the deceased, that being no part of
the transaction itself.^
The term "contract in issue" in a statute rendering a sur-
viving party thereto incompetent signifies the contract which
is substantially in dispute and not that which appears upon
the formal allegations of the pleadings.' Testimony is ad-
missible of facts occurring after the decease of the party under
a statute which renders incompetent evidence of personal
transactions with him.* Nor is such evidence objectionable
because the jury may infer from it the existence of a personal
transaction with the deceased party.* The rule excluding evi-
dence of a personal transaction with a deceased person oper-
ates to prevent the survivor from testifying to the contents
of a letter sent to the deceased,^ or to the fact that a letter
was delivered to him,'' though it does not prevent the intro-
duction of a writing executed by him. The writing cannot
be explained by the testimony of a party or interested witness^
The mere fact that a third person
was present at an interview between
the deceased and a. surviving party
does not render the latter competent.
Hatch V. Perignet, 64 Barb. 189;
Hutchison v. Cleary, 55 N. W. Rep.
739; Burnham v. Cleary, 34 Wis.
117.
1 Sawyer v. Grandy (N. C, 1893),
18 S. E. Rep. 79. Contra, Holliday
V. McKinuie, 32 Fla. 153.
2 Trimble v. Mims (Ga., 1894), 18
S. E. Rep. 363. Where a statute in
terms excludes the testimony of
parties and interested witnesses " in
any action upon a claim or demand
against the estate of a deceased per-
son," it has been held that the stat-
ute does not operate in an action to
enforce a mechanic's lien which is in
the nature of a proceeding in rem.
Booth V. Pendola (Cal., 1890), 33 Pac.
Rep. 300. But the contrary was held
in Gunther v. Bennett (Md., 1890),
19 Atl. Rep. 1048.
s Barnes v. Dow, 59 Vt. 515.
4Kreps V. Carlisle (Pa., 1893), 37
Atl. Rep. 741 ; Swazey v. Ames, 79
Me. 483; Gifford v. Thomas (Vt.,
1890), 19 Atl. Rep. 1088.
5 In re Debaun, 4 N. Y. S. 343;
Porter v. Nelson, 121 Pa. St. 640;
Moore v. Dutson, 79 Ga. 456; 5 S. E.
Rep. 38 ; Rothrook v. Gallaher, 91 Ga.
id. 108 ; Griffin v. Giiffia, 17 N. E. Rep.
783 ; 135 111. 430. It is held that the
witness cannot testify to a relation-
ship or condition which existed after
the death of the party which was
founded on a personal transaction
with him prior thereto. Denison v.
Denison, 35 Md. 361; Adams v. Ed-
wards, 115 Pa. St. 211; Adams v.
Morrison, 113 N. Y. 153.
6 Sabre v. Smith, 63 N. H. 663.
' Howard v. Zimpelman (Tex.,
1890), 14 S. W. Rep. 59.
8 Miller v. Motter, 35 Md. 438;
Berry v. Stevens, 69 Me. S90.
442 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 310.
when offered against the executor, though it may be explained
or contradicted when offered ' in his behalf, as by such action
the representative has opened the door for the adverse party.
The prohibition of the introduction of evidence of a per-
sonal transaction with the deceased should be construed, not
only to prevent the introduction of direct proof of' such a
transaction, but to prevent its proof by indirection as well.
So the surviving party should not be permitted to attempt to
prove the transaction inferentially by offering evidence that
some third person did not do the thing which the deceased is
alleged to have done, or by disconnecting any particular fact
from its surroundings and proving it as a seemingly independ-
ent fact, when in truth it originated in, was caused by or was
connected with a personal transaction evidence of which is in-
admissible.^
Whether a transaction is within the statute is a preliminary
question for the court,' and the witness who is about to testify
may be interrogated by the court as to what passed and
whether he was a privy to the transaction or was disinterested
and merely overheard a conversation of the depeased with
some third person.* The death of the party whose representa-
tive objects to the admission of the evidence may usually be
shown 'prima facie by the letters under which he acts,* though
if a party sued individually defends as an administrator and
claims the statutory privileges of a representative, he must
have established his title and representative status in some
preliminary proceedings.'
§ 310. Persons interested — Their statutory incompe-
tency.— In some of the states it is provided by statute that no
person whatever who is interested in the event of an action,
or any person from whom a party or interested person de-
rives his interest, can testify in his own behalf or in behalf of
a party claiming under him against the personal representa-
tive of a deceased or insane person as to any personal con-
versation or transaction with the latter.^ The interest which
1 Hubbard v. Johnson, 77 Me. 139. » Parhan v. Moran, 4 Hun, 717.
2Clift V, Moses, 118 N. Y. 43fi; 21 eprewitt v, Lambert (Colo., 1893),
N. Y. State Rep. 777. 34 Pao. Rep. 684.
■'Abbott's Trial Evr., 66. iNew York Civ. Pro., § 839;
*Iaenhour v. Isenhour, 64 N. C. Illinois R. S., oh. 51, sec. 1; Shields
640; Abbott's Trial Ev., 06. v. Smith (N. C, 1893), 10 S. E. Rep.
§ 310.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 443
will disqualify a witness who is not a party to the action
must be direct, pecuniary and beneficial,^ such as would render
him incompetent at common law.^ So if the witness is equally
interested on both sides,' or if his interest is very contingent
or remote, he will be allowed to testify.* An heir, legatee or
devisee of a party is an interested person, and hence is in-
competent to testify against the representative of a deceased
person.^
The term " person from whom the party or interested wit-
ness derives his title " includes not only his immediate assignor,
but all prior grantors or assignors.* An interested witness
76 ; California Code, § 1880, cl. 3 ; interested whose evidence is incom-
Florida Laws, ch, 101, g 24; Iowa petent. New York Smelting Co. v.
Rev. Code, 1886, § 3639; Maine E. S. Lieb, 4 N. Y. S. 545; 56 Super. Ct.
1833, ch. 82, § 98;, Montana Stat. Eep. (N. Y.) 308.
Code Civ. Pro., §647; Nevada Gen. ^Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y.
Stat. 1885, g 3399; North Carolina 239; Mills v. Davis, 113 N. Y..248;
Code, 1883, §§ E:89, 596, 1357; Ohio Kerr v. Lunsford, 81 W. Vii. 659;
E. S. 1886, gg 5240, 5241, 5243; West In re Eysamen, 113 N. Y. 62. Cf.
Virginia Code, ch. 130, § 23. Staser v. Hogan, 21 N. E. Eep. 911 ;
IFuehs V. Fuchs, 48Mo. App. 18; Todd v. Dibble, 6 Dem. Sur. 35;
Nearpass v. Gilman, 104 N. Y. 310; Brigham v. Gott, 3 N. Y. S. 518;
Fowler v. Smith, 153 Pa. St. 639; In Smith v. Pierce (Vt., 1893), 35 Atl.
re Bedlow's Will, 67 Hun, 408; Rep. 1092; Dickson v. McGraw, 151
Bowers v. Sohnler (Minn., 1893), 55 Pa. St. 98 ; West v. Randall, 2 Mason,
N. W. Rep. 817; Graves v. Saflford, 181; Payne v. Kerr, 66 Hun, 636;
41 111. App. 659; In re Taylor, 154 In re Bedlow, 67 Hun, 408; Carlile
Pa. St. 183 ; Bunn v. Todd, 107 N. C. v. Burley, 3 Greenl. 250. A widow
836 ; Fogal v. Page, 59 Hun, 635 ; whose inchoate right of dower will
Allen V. Hawks, 13 Pick. 70 ; Hobart attach to land recovered is interested
V. Hobart, 63 N. Y. 80; Stewart v. in the event. Crane v. Crane, 81
Kip, 5 Johns. 256; Shaack v. Meily, 111. 166; Ervin v. Ervin, 18 Civ. Pro.
136 Pa. St. 161 ; 36 W. N. C. 569. Rep. 11 ; Redfield v. Redfield, 110 N.
2 Beard v. First Nat. Bank, 39 Y. 674 ; Warrick v. Hull, 103 III. 280.
Minn. 547. O/. Miller v. Montgomery, 78 N. Y.
8 Scott V. Harris, 137 Ind. 530. 285; Sanford v. EUithorpe, 95 N. Y.
4 Huckabee v. Abbott, 87 Ala. 409; 48; Eisenlord v. Eisenlord, 2 N. Y.
Nearpass v. Gilman, 104 N. Y. 507; IS. 128; Steele v. Ward, 30 Hun, 355:
Harrow v. Brown, 76 Iowa, 179; Devinney v. Carey, 33 N. Y. State
Clark v. McNeal, 114 N. Y. 289; Eep. 208; 5 N. Y. S. 289 (holding
Rank v. Grote (N. Y., 1888), 17 N. E. that a tenant by the curtesy is an in-
Rep. 665; Wallace v. Straus, 113 N. terested person).
Y. 238; Duryea V. Granger (Mich., « Parrell v. McEeynolds (Iowa,
1887), 33 N. W. Eep. 730. The son 1887), 33 N. W. Eep. 139; Pope v.
of a party to an action is not by Allen, 90 N. Y. 398 ; Drew v. Sim-
reason of his relationship a person mons, 58 Ala. 463 ; Stackable v.
441
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.
[§ 310.
Tuay be made competent hj absolutely releasing his claims,*
though he may be asked if the assignment was made solely
to qualify him as a witness; ^ and if it is not a ho7ia fide as-
signment he will be still incompetent.'
Where the statute expressly I'efers to parties as incompe-
tent it is held that third persons merely interested in the
event are not included thereby.* So where those having " ad-
verse interests" are mentioned, witnesses whose interests are
not adverse to the deceased may be permitted to testify in be-
half of the surviving party .^ The evidence given by a sur-
viving party or by an interested person of personal transactions
with the deceased will not be rejected by the court of its own
motion,* but the objection to the witness, which must specific-
ally point out the grounds,' must be taken by the administra-
tor or other party acting in a representative capacity,* and
it will be deemed to have been waived if it is not promptly
made by him.'
Upon the question whether the death or insanity of an
agent or other fiduciary representative of a party to a con-
tract will render the testimony of the other party or of an
Stackpole (Mich., 18S7), 33 N. W.
Eep. 808.
1 O'Brien v. Weiler, 68 Hun, 64;
Genet v. Lawyer, 61 Barb. 311 ; In re
Wilson, 103 N. Y. 374; Loder v.
Whelpley, 111 id. 339; Brown v.
Clock, 5 N. Y. Supp. 245.
2 Buck V. Patterson, 75 Mich. 397.
SBoustead v. Cuyler (Pa., 1887), 8
Atl. Rep. 848.
< Rawson v. Knight, 73 Me. 340 ;
Spencer v. Robbins, 106 Ind. 580;
Bassett v. Shepardson, 53 Mich. 3;
Wilson V. Russell, 61 N. H. 355;
Lytlev. Bond, 40 Vt. 618; Pendeli
V. Neuberger, 31 N. W. Rep. 177.
SGerz V. Weber, 151 Pa. St. 396;
Thistlewaite v. Thistlewaite, 133 Ind.
355; Howie V. Edward (Ala., 1893),
11 S. Rep. 748; Hammill v. Sup.
Council, 153 Pa. St. 537.
6 Rowland v, Rowland, 40 N. J.
Eq. 281. Contra, Sherman v. Lanier,
39 N. J. Eq. 353.
7 Lewin v. Russell, 43 N. Y. 251.
8 Marcy v. Amazeen, 61 N. H. 133.
sParrish v. McNeal (Neb., 1893),
55 N. W. Rep. 323; Norris v. Stew-
art's Heirs, 105 N. C. 455; 10 S. E.
Rep. 913. Cf. Sager v. Dorr, 4 N.
Y. S. 568; Dilley v. Love, 61 Md.
607. If the objection is taken be-
fore judgment it seems that it will
suffice. Dodge v. Stanhope, 55 Md.
121. Or if evidence to rebut it is
offered. Phillips v. McGrath, 68 Wis.
124. But it was held that the er-
roneous reception of evidence inad-
missible under these statutes is
cured where the opposite party fails
to attempt to rebut tlie fact which
has been testified to in case the bur-
den of doing so is on him. Wheeler
V. Wheeler, 18 N. Y. State Rep. 445;
2 N. Y. S. 44(1.
§ 311.1 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 445
interested person incompetent the cases are not harmonious.
The weight of the decisions sustains the rule that the adverse
party will not be allowed to testify to any conversation or
transaction he may have had with the deceased agent.^ But
the contrary doctrine is not without the support of authority.^
§311. Incompetency of parties to negotiable instruments
to impeacli them. — In many of the early English cases,' in
the supreme court of the United States,* and in the courts of
several of the state commonwealths, a rule has been laid down
that a party to a negotiable instrument, i. e., the maker or in-
dorser thereof, is incompetent in a subsequent suit brought on
the instrument to testify as a witness to any fact impeaching
the instrument which existed when he signed or indorsed the
note or other negotiable security.^ The basis of this exclusory
rule is generally stated to be that it is contrary to sound public
policy and good morals to allow a person who has, for his own
benefit, giving currency and circulation to a negotiable instru-
ment, to state facts which might invalidate it in the hands of
a bona fide purchaser or holder for value. However true this
view may be in case the person is himself a party — and cer-
tainly as a party he should be estopped, upon general prin-
ciples of estoppel, from impeaching his own deliberate act, — it
does not seem applicable where third parties only are in liti-
gation, if the witness knows the discrediting fact and if that
1 Whiting V. Traynor, 74 Wis. S6 ; Henderson v. Anderson, 3 How.
393: Sabler v. Shef. S. Co,, 87 Ala. (U. S.) 73.
305; Warten v. Strane, 83 Ala. 311 "Fox v. Whitney, 16 Mass. 118;
(clerk); Mobile S. Bank v. McDon- Shamburg v. Commagere, 5 Martin
nell. 87 id. 736; Johnson v. Hart, 83 (La.), 9; Sweeny v. Easter, 1 Wall.
Ga. 767; Kansas M. Co. v. Wagner, 166; Haddock v. Wilmarth, 5 N. H.
25 Neb. 439. 187 ; Dewey v. Warriner, 71 III.
2 Farmers' Ins, Co. v. Insurance 198; Fox v. Whitney, 16 Mass. 1.1%;
Co., 40 Minn. 158; Sprague v. Bond Strong v. Wilson, 1 Morris (Iowa),
(N, C, 1894), 18 S. E. Rep. 701; South 84; Dealing v. Sawtelle, 4 Greenl.
Baltimore Co. v. Muhlback, 69 Md. (Me.) 191 ; Treon v. Brown, 14 Ohio,
395 ; First Nat. Bank v. Cornell, 41 483 ; Eohrer v. Morningstar, 18 Ohio,
Ohio St. 401 ; Reynolds v. Iowa Ins. 579 ; Thayer v. Croasnian, 1 Mete.
Co., 80 Iowa, 563; 46 N. W. Rep. (Mass.) 416; Gaul v. Willis, 26 Pa.
659. St. 259. The rule is not invoked in
3 Walton V. Shelley, 1 T. R. 296, case the party has indorsed " with-
cited in Greenl. on Bv., § 383. out recourse." 3 Pars, on Pr. N, &
* United States v. Leffler, 11 Pet. B. 470; Abbott v. Mitchell, 6 Shepl.
853.
446 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 312.
fact is one of which the law allows proof.^ The rule has been
repudiated both in England and in America by the majoritj'-
of the cases.^ In any case it is only applicable to negotiable
paper issued in the usual course of trade before maturity,' and
does not apply between the original parties or to those who
take the paper with notice of any equitable defenses good as
between the parties.* The rule does not render the person
incompetent as a witness to any facts which have taken place
subsequent to his act of indorsement,* or to facts not in any
way impairing or discrediting the validity of the instrument.*
§ 312. Competency of counsel as witnesses. — By some of
the early cases it was held, not indeed as a positive rule of
law, but rather as a matter of propriety and procedure deemed
necessary to the impartial administration of justice, that an
attorney-at-law could not testify for his client in the cause in
which he was engaged.'' But the modern rule is otherwise,
and counsel are competent witnesses for a party as to all facts
which are within their personal knowledge,^ though the prac-
tice of I'eceiving this sort of testimon}' should not, it seems, be
encouraged,' in view of the bias with which the mind of the
1 Abbott's Trial Evidence, § 417. 5 Haines v. Dennett, 11 N. H. 180.
2 Stafford v. Rice, 5 Cowen, 23; « Sweeney v. Easter, 1 Wall. 166.
Guy V. Hull, SMurph. (N. C.) 150; 'Stones v. Byron, 4 Dowl. & L.
Griffing v. Harris, 9 Port. (Ala.) 393; Dunn v. Packwood, llJur. 243;
225; Taylor v. Beck, 8 Rand. (Va.) Mishler v. Baumgardner, 1 Am. L.
216; Jackson v. Parker, 13 Conn. J. 304.
353; Freeman v. Britton, 3 Harr. 8 Little v. Keen, 1 N. T. Code R. 4 ;
(N. J.) 191; Knight v. Packard, 3 Linton v. Com., 46 Pa. St. 294; Fol-
McCord, 71; Slack v. Mass, Dud. lansbee v. Walker, 72 Pa. St. 230;
(Ga.) 101; Abbott v. Ross, 63 Me. State v. Cook, 23 La. Ann. 347; Pot-
194; Stump v. Napier, 2 Yerger ter v. Ware, 1 Cush. 519, 524; Mealer
(Tenn.), 35; Todd v. Stafford, 1 Stew. v. State (Tex., 1893), 23 S. W. Rep.
(Ala.) 199 ;Gorhamv. Carroll, 3 Litt. 143. Cf. Traser v. Haggerty, 86
(Ky.) 131 ; Ringgold v. Tyson, 3 Mich. 521.
Harr. & J. 173; Parsons v. Phipps, 9 Gardner v. Benedict, 27 N. Y. S.
4 Tex. 341; Bank V. Hull, 7 Mo. 273; 3. As to privileged communica-
Williams v. Wwlbridge, 3 Wend, tions to attorneys, see g§ 169-174.
415; Orr V. Lacey, 2Doug. 230. In Cook v. United States, 11 S.
3 Parke v. Smith, 4 Watts & S. Ct. 268; 138 U. S. 157, counsel for
287; Rohrer V. Morningstar, 18 Ohio, the defendant was examined by the
579 ; Thayer v, Grossman, 1 Mete, prosecution as to matters not priv-
416. ileged.
* Bubier v. Pulsifer, 4 Gray (Mass.),
593.
g§ 313, 314.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 447
counsel is imbued because of his relation to the parties to
the action.
§313. Competency of judge as a witness. — In consequence
of the peculiar province and duties of the judge presiding in a
cause, it has been considered objectionable, if not highly im-
proper and erroneous, for him to act as a witness in the same
case. Aside from the objection that his conduct should not
be subjected to cross-examination and comment, his peculiar
duties' in administering oaths to the witnesses, in case the
court has no clerk, in adjudicating upon their competenc}'
and the admissibility of the evidence, with his power to com-
mit for contempt, render it unfit that he should assume the
dual character of witness and judge in the same cause.^ So
upon analogous reasoning it has been held that, where a cause
was pending before several referees, one of them could not be
sworn or examined as a witness by the others.^ But while
these considerations are reasonable the}' do not apply in the
trial of a case in which the witness, though he is a judge, is not
presiding in that case; and hence it is a rule that a judge may
testify, as, for example, to the accuracy of the notes which he
has taken at a former trial .^
§ 314. The incompetency of arbitrators as witnesses in
an action on tlie award. — An arbitrator is a competent wit-
ness to prove any facts upon the existence of which his au-
thority as an arbitrator depended. In an action to enforce
the award he may be required to testify as to what matters
were included in the submission,* or what subjects actually
came before him for action,', and what matters were actually
1 Baker v. Thompson, 89 Ga. 486; (N. Y.) 197; Ross v. Buhler, 2 Mart.
Buccleugh V. Board, L. R. 5 H. L. N. S. (La.) 313; Welcome v. Batch-
418, 433 ; People v. Miller, 3 Parker elder, 83 Me. 85.
C. E. 197 ; Rex v. Harvey, 8 Cox C. * Republic Bank v. Darragh, 30
C. 103; Regina v. Gazard, 8 C. & P. Hun (N. Y.), 29; Thrasher v. Overly,
595. See ante, § 175. 51 Ga. 91; Hale v. Huse, 10 Gray
2Morss V. Morss, 11 Barb. 310. (Mass.), 99; Hall v. Vanier, 6 Neb.
' State V. Duffy, 5" Conn. 535 ; 85 ; Birbeck v. Burrows, 3 Hall, 51 ;
People V. Dohring, 59 N. Y. 374; Cady v. Walker, 63 Mich. 157.
Morss V. Morss, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 510; ^Dute of Buccleugh v. Board,
Shall V. Miller, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 156; L. R. 5 H. L. Cas. 418; 3 Moak's
People V. Miller, 2 Park. Cr. Cas. Eng. 448.
as COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 315.
considered by him.' So an arbitrator may testify to the fact
that an award was made and delivered, and, if it was oral, he
may be asked to state it on the witness stand.^ But an arbi-
trator is not a competent witness to impeach the legality or
validity of the award, or to show the impropriety of his own
actions in connection therewith, unless he dissented from the
award. His voluntary assent to or acquiescence in the award
as rendered will estop him from denying its validity subse-
quently.' E'either can he be interrogated as to his reasons or
the motives which actuated him while exercising the quasi-
judicial and discretionary powers over the matter submitted
to him for arbitration.''
§ 315. Definition and form of oath and affirmation. — An
oath has been defined as "an outward pledge given by the
person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under
an immediate sense of bis responsibility to God." ^ This defi-
nition, it should be noticM, omits entirely the imprecatory
character which was so prominent in the definitions of the
earlier writers on evidence,^ and is certainly more consonant
with modern ideas upon this subject and less calculated to
give offense to any who may have conscientious scruples
against invoking the anger of Deity upon themselves.
Oaths are divided into two classes: judicial oaths, which
are taken during a judicial proceeding, according to legal
direction or requirement, and extra-judicial oaths, which are
taken without any express authority or direction of law.'
Judicial oaths are usually administered by the clerk of the
court, who repeats the following formula to the witness: "You
> Mayor of New York v. Butler, 1 Cobb v. Dortch,'52 Ga. 548; Alex-
Barb. 325 ; Cole v. Blunt, 3 Bosw. ander v. McNear, 38 Fed. Rep. 403 ;
116. Tucker v. Page, 69 111. 179; Jackson
2Boughton V. Seamans, 9 Hun, v. Gager, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 388.
393. 5 Tyler on Oaths, p. 15. For other
3 Newland v. Douglas, 2 Johns. 62 ; definitions, see Anderson's Law
Jackson v. Gager, 5 Cow. 383'; Diet., citing Parkes v. Parkes, 25
Tucker v. Page, 69 111. 179; Camp- E. L. & E. 619; King v. White, 3
bell V. Weston, 3 Paige, 124. Leach Cr. Cas. 483.
*In re Whiteley (1891), 1 Ch. 558
Chapman v. Ewing, 78 Ala, 403
Aldrich v. Jessiman, 85 N. H. 516
6 1 Stark. Ev. 33.
' Anderson's Law Diet.
315.]
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.
M9
do solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, as a witness in this issue now joined
between A. and B. So help vou God." The assent of the wit-
ness is expressed by his uplifted hand or by his placing his
hand upon a copy of the Gospels while the oath is being re-
peated, and by his kissing the Bible at its close.' But no
particular form of administering the oath was or is required
so long as the witness is sworn in such a way as he will con-
sider binding upon his conscience.''
Where a witness, when about to be sworn, says that he is
an adherent of a religious faith other than Christianity, he
should be asked what oath he would consider most binding,
and if he prefers any other than the usual form he should be
sworn accordingly.' Even in the case of a witness who is a
Christian, his wishes and scruples will be respected, and if he
shall object to being sworn upon the Gospels his solemn af-
firmation will be regarded as equivalent thereto.* A witness
1 See Jackson v. State, 1 Ind. 185 ;
State V. Norris, 9 N. H. 101.
2 In Otnichund v. Barker, Willes,
545, 547, the court said: "Oaths
•were instituted long before the be-
ginning of the Christian era, and
'were always held in the highest
veneration. The substance of an
oath has nothing to do with Chris-
tianity. The forma have always
been different in different countries,
But still the substance is the same,
which is that God in all of them is
called upon to witness the truth of
what we say. Such infidels who be-
lieve in a God and that he will pun-
ish them if they swear falsely may
testify."
j 3 Omichund v. Barker, 1 Atk, 21,
46; Atchison v. Everett, Cowp. 389,
390; People v. Green (Cal., 1893), 84
Pac. Eep. 231 ; State v. Chyo Chiagk,
92 Mo. 395.
< State V. Welch, 79 Me. 99. Many
persons, construing the scriptural in-
junction " Swear not at all " as an
express prohibition of oaths of every
29
sort, refuse, because of conscientious
principle, to participate in or assent
to any form of words which involves
an invocation of the Deity, To such
persons an interrogation somewhat
in the following form is usually pro-
pounded: "You do solemnly, sin-
cerely and truly declare and affirm
that you will state the truth, the
■whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, in the issue now joined be-
tween A. and B." An affirmative
reply to this question is equivalent
to an oath, and renders the witness
liable to a prosecution for perjury in
case he testifies falsely. But it is
now held in England that the wit-
ness should be asked by the judge
whether the ground of his refusal
to be sworn is a lack of religious be-
lief or whether he objects to taking
an oath. If the witness declai-es he
has a religious belief he should be
required to take an oath. Reg, v.
Moore, 61 Law J. Mag. 80; 17 Cox
Cr. Cas. 458.
450 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 315,
may, after heing sworn, be asked if he considers tlie oath he
has taken as binding, though it would be improper then to
ask him if any other form would be deemed by him to be
of greater force;' for he is liable to be punished for per-
jury, though he does not consider himself bound by the form
of oath by which he was sworn, if he failed to object at the
time of swearing.^ If the witness is sworn before a separate
trial is ordered in the case of several jointly indicted, he must
be again sworn thereafter.'
The objection that a witness was not properly sworn cannot
be raised for the first time when a motion is made for a new
trial,* unless the omission to swear him was not noticed by the
objecting party until after the trial had been finished.*
The power to administer oaths is usually conferred upon
private arbitrators by statute. At common law they did not
possess it,* and an oath administered by an arbitrator was a
nullity so far as a prosecution of the witness for perjury was
concerned.'' The parties to the arbitration may, however, un-
less the witness is absolutely required to be sworn by a stat-
ute,^ waive the taking of an oath by the witness.' After the
waiver, which may be by express language or by necessary
1 The Queen's Case, 2 Brod. & Bing. « Rice v. Hassenpflug, 13 N. E.
284. Rep. 655 ; 45 Ohio St. 477 ; Large v.
^ State V. Whisenhurst, 2 Hawks, Passmore, 5 S. & R. (Pa.) 51 ; Peo-
458. The olerli will be allowed, where pie v. Townsend, 5 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
a defendant has many aliases, to re- 315.
peat them in swearing a witness, ' Frazer v. Phelps, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.)
stating also his true name. If the 741 ; Bonner v. McPhail, 31 Barb.
aliases are given in the indictment, (N. Y.) 106.
their repetition by the clerk in the 8 Wolfe v. Hyatt, 76 Mo. 156.
hearing of the jurors is not calcu- ' Newcomb v. Wood, 7 Otto(U. S.),
lated to prejudice them against the 581; Cochran v. Bartell, 91 Mo. 655;
prisoner. People v. Everhart, 104 3 S. W, Rep. 854 ; Maynard v. Fred-
N. Y. 591; 11 N. E.. Rep. 62. erick, 7 Oush. 247; Price v. Perkins,
s Abbott, Crim. Brief, g 386 ; Bab- 2 Dev. Eq. (N. 0.) 250. An arbitra-
cock V. People, 15 Hun (N. Y.), 347. tor who possesses no statutory power
* Goldsmith v. State (Tex. , 1893), to administer an oath should call in a
22 S. W. Rep. 405. notary or other officer who has that
5 Hawks V, Baker, 6 Greenl. (Me.) power. Russell on Ai-bitration, 189.
72. In a trial for a felony it is ground See Rice v. Hassenpflug, 45 Ohio St.
for reversal to swear a witness while 377 ; 13 N. E. Rep. 655,
the accused is not in court. Bear-
den V, State, 44 Ark. 331.
§ 316.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 451
implication from the conduct or the silence of a part}-, he
cannot claim to have an award set aside for the sole reason
that the witnesses were not sworn.^
§ 316. Incompetency because of a lack of religious belief.
At common law, in consequence of the paramount importance
attached to the religious element of an oath, all persons whose
religious faith did not involve the belief in a Deity who would
punish falsehood were incompetent as witnesses.^ So it was
said, to require an oath to be taken by one who, like the athe-
ist, " was presumed to be unable to appreciate its religious
sanction, was a mockery of justice." ' Every person born and
educated under the influence of Christianity wasj^rima facie
presumed to possess sufficient religious faith to render him-
competent as a witness. In any case he was only required to
believe in a God who would punish perjury, and it was of no
consequence whether he believed that the perjurer would be
punished by remorse of conscience in this life or beyond the
grave in some other way.* The witness could not usually be
directly questioned as to his possession of a religious belief,
though his atheism might always be shown by the evidence
of other persons in whose hearing he had voluntarily declared
his lack of religious belief:^ and the fact that he had subse-
quently acquired sufficient religious faith to render him com-
petent might also be shown. °
It is now the law by statute ,in almost every state in the
Union that no witness shall be considered incompetent be-
cause of his belief or disbelief in the tenets of any system of
religious faith, provided he understands the nature of an oath. '
In conformity with the principles underlying such statutor}'^
enactments, and having regard to existing federal and state
constitutional guaranties intended to secure freedom of relig^
1 Cochran v. Bartell, 91 Mo. 655. 369; Bush v. Com., 80 Ky. 248, 250.
2 0michund v. Barker, 1 Atk. 21. See Com. v. Hills, 10 Cush. 532;
3 See anU, § 315. Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H. 55; Gibson
< 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 369; People v. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 37 N. Y. 584, for
V. Matteson, 2 Cowen, 438, 473; definitions of "atheist" and "in-
Crappell v. State, 71 Ala. 324 ; Brock lidel. "
V. Milligan, 10 Ohio, 123, 125; Blocker ■' Odell v. Koppel, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.)
V. Burness, 2 Ala. 355; Arnold v. 88; Com. v. Smith, 2 Gray, 516.
Arnold, 13 Vt. 43, 362; Hunscom t. o Atwood v. Welton, 7 Conn. 66;
Hunscom, 15 Mass. 184 ; 3 Bl. Com. Scott v. Hooper, 14 Vt. 535.
452 COMPETENOT OF 'WITNESSES. [§ 317.
ious belief, any question tending to discredit the witness by
showing his atheism or agnosticism is decidedly objection-
able.' So where, by constitutional enactment, it is provided
that no person shall be denied the enjoymeut of any civil
rights on account of his religious principles, it is held that a
party is not incompetent as a witness in his own behalf be-
cause he did not believe in a God that would punish false
swearing.*
§ 317. Incompetency of insane persons as witnesses. —
The common law recognized little, if any, distinction between
the numerous forms which insanity assumes. Thus, a person
mentally unsound in any respect, whether he was an imbecile
or idiot, a furious maniac or a quiet sufferer from melancholia,
senile dementia or some harmless and perhaps temporary
monomania, was incompetent as a witness,' though if the ex-
istence of a lucid interval was properly established he was per-
mitted to testify.
It is now well established that the insanity or intellectual
weakness of a witness, no matter what shape it maj'' take, is
no objection to his competency, provided he has mental ca-
pacity sufficient to discern between right and wrong, so far
as the facts at issue and his testimony thereon are involved,
understands the binding character of an oath,* and can give
an apparently intelligible and reasonable account of any
transaction which he has seen or heard.' Nor is a party pre-
vented from testifying because he alleges and offers evidence
to show his own mental impairment.^ A witness who is ex-
amined by a commission out of court will be presumed to be
1 People V. Copsey, 71 Cal, 548. Crlm. Ev. 128; Best's Er., p. 168
2 State V. Powers, 51 N. J. L. 433; Evans v. Hettich, 7 Wheat. 453, 470.
17 Atl. Eep. 969; Ewing v. Bailey, ^Reg. v. Hill, 15 Jur. 470; 5 Eng.
36 111. App. 191 ; Hroneck v. People L. & Eq. 547; 5 Cox's C. C. 259, 366
(111., 1890), 24 N. E. Eep. 861. In Holcomb v. Holcomb, 28 Conn. 177
enunciating the rule at commo.n District v. Armes, 107 U. S. 521
law, Shaw, C. J., said in Com. v. Coleman v. Com., 2f Gratt. 865
Smith, 3 Gray, 516: " The want of Worthington v. Menoer (Ala., 1893),
such religious belief must be estab- 11 S. Rep. 73.
lished by other means than the ex- 'Walker v. State (Ala., 1893), 13
amination of the witness upon the S. Rep. S3, v
stand." * Dickson v. Waldron (Ind.,
3 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 365 ; White's 35 N. E. Eep. 1.
Case, 3 Leach's Cr. Cas. 430; Rose.
§§ 318, 319.] COMPETENCY OK WITNESSES. 453
sane, and in case evidence of his insanity is offered when his
deposition is read in court, the question jof his mental capac-
ity is then for the jury.^ "Where the witness, though he has
been legally pronounced insane and is in charge of a commit-
tee, has been permitted b}' the court to testify as a competent
witness, his credibilitj' is a question for the jury.^ If his evi-
dence is uncorroborated, and where, being a party, he is inter-
ested in the suit, the jury may refuse to believe his testimony
if upon his whole evidence and his actions while on the stand
they believe his mind is so far diseased that his evidence is un-
reliable and incredible.'
§ 318. Deaf-mutes as witnesses. — By the earlier common
law a deaf-mute was regarded as an idiot,* and deemed to be
so utterly devoid of understanding that he was incompetent
to testify as a witness until it was clearly and affirmatively
shown that he possessed sufficient intelligence for that pur-
pose,' and the burden of proving him competent was on the
party producing him. At the present day, if he can read and
write, he may be questioned and may reply in writing,^ though
ordinarily, even if he can write, his examination may be con-
ducted by the use of signs with the aid of an interpreter who
is properly qualified.'' Expert testimony is not required to
show the intelligence of a deaf and dumb witness where his
employer or some other person acquainted with him testifies
to his intelligence and to his knowledge of the sign language.'
§ 319. Children as witnesses. — Until the contrary is shown,
it is a presumption that after a child has attained the age of
1 Gainesworth v. Caldwell, 81 Ga. which he can make it Intelligible,
76. Cf. contra, where a witness is but such writing must be written
examined in court, Clements v. Mc- and such signs made in open court.
Ginn (Cal., 1893), 33 Pac. Eep. 920. Evidence so given is deemed to be
2 People ex rel. Norton v. N. Y. oral evidence." Stephen's Digest,
Hospital, 3 Abb. N. C. 239, art. 106.
8 Worthington v. Mencer (Ala., 'Skaggs v. State, 108 Ind. 53;
1893), 11 S. Rep. 73. Com. v. Hill, 14 Mass. 207; Huston's
*4 Bl. Com. 303-4. Case, 1 Leach's Or. Cas. 408; State v,
« 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 366. Wolf, 8 Conn. 93 ; State v. Howard
6 Morrison v. Leonard, 3 C. & P. (Mo., 1893), 34 S. W. Eep. 81; Sny-
137. "A witness, unable to speak der v. Nations, 5 Blackf. 395.
or hear, is not incompetent, but may 8 state v. Weldon (S. C, 1893), 17
give his evidence by writing or by S. E. Eep. 688.
signs, or in any other manner in
45i COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 320.
fourteen he possesses suflQcient intelligence to testify as a wit-
ness. In the case of a child under that age his competency
must be shown.^ It matters not how young he may be, he
will be competent if he possesses enough mental capacity and
memory to enable him to give a reasonably intelligent account
of the transaction he is called upon to describe, and understands
the character, effect and obligation of an oath.'' Where the
child does not fully understand the nature and obligation of
an oath, the court may, in its discretion, where the witness
has sufficient mental capacity to profit by such teaching, allow
him to be more fully instructed by a proper person.^ The
competency of a child under fourteen is always a question for
the discretion of the court, and unless this discretion is grossly
abused, its exercise is not reviewable on appeal.*
§ 320. Witnesses rendered incompetent by conviction of
infamous crimes — The effect of pardon. — At common law
persons who had been convicted of perjury, murder, piracy,
forgery, arson or other infamous crimes were thereby ren-
dered incompetent to testify as witnesses. A delinquency of
this character was conclusively presumed to indicate such a
state of moral turpitude on the part of the person who had
been convicted that his absolute incapacity to tell the truth
was taken for granted. In other words, the probability that
1 Hughes V. Detroit, 31 N. W. Eep. would be punished if she did not
603 ; 63 Mich. 10. tell the truth, was held competent
2 Davis V. State (Neb., 1890), 47 as a witness.
N. W. Eep. 854 ; State v. McGuff, 3 Rex v. Wade, 1 Mood. Cr. Gas.
88 Ala. 151; McGuire v. People, 44 86: Com. v. Lynes, 143 Mass. 570-
Mich. 386; Jones v. Brooklyn, etc. 580. Contra, Rex v. Williams, 7
Co., 3 N. Y. S. 253; State v. Sever- P. & P. 320. Of. Reg. v. Nicholas,
son, 43 N. W. Eep. 533; Hoist v. 2 C. & K. 246; Taylor v. State (Tex.,
State, 33 Tex. App. 1; Moore v. State, 1887), 3 S. W. Rep. 753.
I 79 Ga. 498. But the dying declara- * Ridenhour v. Kansas City, 102
tion of a child four years old has Mo. 370 ; People v. Frindel, 58 feun,
been rejected upon the presumption 483 ; Hawkins v. State, 37 Tex. App,
that one so young could not realize 373; State v. Severson (Iowa, 1889),
the idea of a future state. Rex v. 43 N. W. Eep. 533. Leading ques-
Pike, 3 C. & P. 598 ; People v. Mc- tions are never objectionable when
Nair, 21 Wend. 608; State v. Michael, put to a youthful witness to ascer-
37 W. Va. 565. In Agnew v. Brook- tain his competency and uader-
lyn City R. E. Co., 5 N. Y. S. 756, a standing of aa oath. Hodge v. State
child only six and a half years of (Fla., 1890), 7 S. Eep. 593.
age, who stated that she knew she
§ 320.] OOMPETENOY OF WITNESSES. 455
a person convicted of an infamous crime would commit per-
jury if allowed to testify as a witness was so great that the
interest of truth and justice demanded his exclusion from the
witness stand.^ The common law required that the witness
should have been convicted of an infamous crime, and the
early writers usually classified under this head treason, felony
and the criinen falsi."^
So far as treason is concerned, and that very numerous class
of offenses which in England, until the beginning of the pres-
ent century, constituted felony at common law, but little un-
certaint}' was experienced. A conviction of perjury,' forgery,*
or conspiracy to suppress testimony or to obstruct justice,'
was always sufficient to exclude the person convicted from
the witness stand. On the other hand, under the term crimen
falsi was rather loosely grouped those minor offenses, such as
criminal libel, barratry, maintenance and the like, which,
while not amounting to felony at common law, indicate an
inherent lack of respect for truth, or a deliberate intention to
interfere with and obstruct the administration of justice, or
to employ the machinery of the law for improper ends by the
person perpetrating such crimes.*
As between third parties the witness was absolutely incom-
petent,' and the admission of his evidence was adequate ground
for a new trial. But it seems that his affidavit under certain
circumstances was receivable as to collateral points not in-
volved in the main issue, as, for example, on a motion to set
aside a judgment which had been irregularly rendered.' The
incompetency caused by infamy is removable at common law
by the pardon of the witness,' by the reversal of the judgment
1 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 372. The con- 3 Co. Lit. 6b.
viction of the witness could only be * Rex v. Davis, 6 Mod. 74.
proved by the record as at present 5 Bushel v. Barrett, Ry. & M. 434.
(Rex V. Castell Careinion, 8 East), and « 2 Russ. on Crimes, 593 ; 1 Greenl.
the judgment must have been ren- on Ev., § 375. In Butler v. Went-
dered by a court having jurisdiction, vrorth, 84 Me. 25, an infamous crime,
Cooke V. Maxwell, 2 Stark. 183. So for which no one can be held unless
if he has been convicted merely, but indicted, has been defined as one
not sentenced, it seems he is still that is punishable by more than one
competent. Brown v. Orr, 86 Va. year's imprisonment.
935. ' In re Sawyer, 2 Q. B. 721.
2 6 Com. Dig. 353, Testmoigne, A. 8 1 Greenl. on Ev.', § 374.
4, 5; Co. Lit. 6b; '3 Hale, P. C. 377. 'Boyd v. United States, 143 U. S.
456
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.
[§ 320.
against him, or by his enduring the punishment of imprison-
ment or transportation annexed to the crime of which he had
been convicted. When, however, a statute in expressly pre-
scribing the punishment which is to be inflicted for the com-
mission of a crime, provides also that the person convicted
thereunder shall forever be incompetent as a witness in any
court, a pardon is ineffectual to restore his competency.^ A
witness who is infamous is not rendered competent by a par-
don which merely " remits the residue of the punishment he
was to endure,"' or which is subject to revocation by the par-
doning power in case he shall again be convicted.' But a full
pardon is not rendered ineffectual because it was granted for
the express purpose of rendering a witness competent to tes-
tify in a case then pending in a court under the jurisdiction
of the pardoning power, and in which the state is the prose-
cutor.* The incompetency caused by a conviction of crime
is not regarded as an essential part of the punishment, nor is
450 ; Logan v. United States, 144 id.
263; Puryear v. Com., 83 Va. 51;
Martin v. State, 21 Tex. App. 1;
United States v. Hall (D. C), 53 Fed.
Eep. 353 ; State v. Dodsoa, 16 S. C.
453; Rivers v. State, 10 Tex. App.
177; Hester v. Com., 85 Pa. St. 139;
Jones V. Harris, 1 Strobii. (S. C.) 160.
See, also, Com. v. Bush, 2 Duv. (Ky.)
364; State v. Foley, 15 Nev. 64.
1 Rex V. Ford, 2 Salk. 690 ; Plane
V. Rogers, 49 Cal. 15 ; 2 Russell on
Crimes, 595, 596; Bull. N. P. 292.
It is provided in several states that
a person convicted of perjury is not
rendered competent as a witness by
his pardon. Virginia, Code, 3898;
Florida, Thomp. Dig. 344; West Vir-
ginia, Code, ch. 153, § 17.
2 Perkins v. Stevens, 24 Pick.
(Mass.) 277.
3 McGee v. State, 16 S. W. Rep.
422; 29 Tex. App. 596.
* Boyd V. United States, 142 U. S.
450. Parol evidence is admissible
to shovf that a pardon covered the
crime of which witness was guilty
(Martin v. State, 21 Tex. App. 1), or
to identify the person named in it
(St*e V. Rose, 92 Mo. 201). The
court is bound to take judicial no-
tice of a general amnesty or legisla-
tive pardoning act (State v. Blalock,
Phill. (N. C.) 242), but an executive
pardon of a particular individual,
being in its nature a- private deed or
release, must be proved, usually by
the production in court of the in-
strument itself. United States v.
Wilson, 7 Pet. (U. .S.) 150; State v.
Babtiste, 26 La. Ann. 134 ; Rosson v,
Stehr, 23 Tex. App. 287; Spalding
V. Saxton, 6 Watts (Pa.), 838. An
absolute pardon once delivered and
accepted is irrevocable (Rosson t.
Stehr, 28 Tex. App. 287), while if the
performance of some act by the wit-
ness is required before the pardon
becomes operative to restore his
competency, it will be necessary to
show that the condition has been
performed. Waring v. United States,
7 Ct. CI. 501 ; Scott v. United States,
8 id. 457 ; State v. Keith, 63 N. C. 140.
§ 321.J COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES, 457
the conviction effective to disqualify the person beyond the
territorial limits of the jurisdiction wherein judgment was
rendered against him. A witness convicted in one state is
not incompetent to testify in the courts of a sister state, though
under a statute of the latter state persons convicted of crime
are incompetent.*
§ 321. Statutory regulation of the competency of wit-
nesses convicted of crime. — The common-law incompetency
of persons convicted of crime, is generally abolished by stat-
utes in the United States. In many of the states the fact that
a witness has been convicted of any crime, however that
crime may imply or indicate his utter lack of respect for truth,
is no objection to his competency, though it is allowable to
show his conviction by proper evidence to enable the jury to
estimate his moral character as a man and his credibility as a
witness.'
In some states a conviction of certain crimes, as perjury,
the commission of which involves an utter disregard of the
obligation or sanctity of an oath, is still an insuperable objec-
tion to the competency of a witness.' In some few of the
states of the Union a witness who has been convicted of a
capital crime or of certain specified felonies which involve or
indicate a high degree of moral turpitude, such, for example,
1 Logan V. United States, 144 U. S.. ch. 82, § 105), Missouri (R. S. 1889,
263. Contra, Peltier v. State, 23 § 8925), Wisconsin (R. S. 1878, sec,
Tex. App. 866; Sims v. Sims, 75 4073), Delaware (Laws, vol. 17, ch.
N. Y. 466. 598, § 3), Kansas (Gen. Stat. 1889,
2 This is the statute law in New § 4414), Nebraska (Code, p. 672, § 830),
York (Code Civ. Pro. 831), Rhode Nevada (Gen. St. 1885, g 3399, sec.
Island (Pub. St., ch. 214, § 38), Utah 377), Montana (Code Civ. Proc. 647)
(Compiled Laws 1888, vol. 3, tit. 10, and Oregon (Hill's Ann. Laws 1887,
oh. 2), Colorado (Gen. Laws, § 3647), ch. 8, title 3, § 710).
California (Civil Code, § 1879), Con- 3 This is the law in Alabama (Code
necticut (Gen. Stat., § 1098), Indiana 1886, § 2766), Florida (Laws, ch. 203,
(R. S., 1888, g§ 506, 1798), Georgia § 6), Maryland (Pub. Gen. Laws,
(Code, § 3834), Michigan (Howell's art. 35, § 1), Mississippi (Rev. Code
Ann. Stat., g§ 7543, 7544), Illinois 1880, § 1600), Pennsylvania (Laws
(R. S., ch, 51, § 1), Massachusetts 1887, ch. 89, § 3), Vermont (R. L.
(Pub. Stat., ch. 169, g 19), Minnesota 1880, § 1008) and Washington (Code,
(Statutes, § 5095), New Hampshire vol. 2, § 1647). The statutes cited in
(Pub. St. 1891, ch. 323, § 26), Ohio this and the preceding note are stated
(E. S, 1886, §§ 5240, 7384), Iowa (Rev. in full in 1 Greenleaf, note to § 372,
Code 1886, § 3637), Maine (R. S. 1883,
458 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. [§ 322.
as burglary, forgery, counterfeiting, rape, arson, perjury, big-
amy, sodomy, etc., is by statute rendered absolutely incom-
petent to testify.^
§ 322. Statutes construed. — "Where the conviction of a wit-
ness of crime is no longer any objection to his competency
the party in whose behalf he is called to testify may intro-
duce evidence of his reputation for truthfulness if his credi-
bility is impeached by proof of his previous conviction.^ In
such a case the character of the witness for truthfulness is con-
sidered to be put in issue by evidence from which the jury is
permitted to draw the inference that the witness has committed
perjury because he has been guilty of some other crime of per-
haps a totally dissimilar character. In other words, the witness,
having been shown to be of a depraved character in one par-
ticular, may be equall}' deficient in moral qualities in other
directions. The conviction must, in the absence of statute,
be shown by the record;' and if an appeal therefrom is pend-
ing when the witness is examined, evidence of the conviction
is inadmissible to impeach his evidence.*
Upon the question whether, under the existing statutes, the
conviction of a witness for any crime which would not have
rendered him incompetent at common law may be shown for
the purpose of impeaching his credit, the cases are divided.
Much of course depends upon the express terms of the stat-
ute. On the one hand, it has been held that the witness may
be discredited by showing him to have been guilty of a mis-
1 Arkansas (Code, § 2859), Ten- land v. State, 2 Pickle (Tenn.), 472),
nessee (Code, g'4563), Texas (Code if he elects to do so.
Cr. Pro. 730), Virginia (Code 1887, ^ Webb v. State, 39 Ohio St. 351 ;
§ 3S98). See last note. See, also, Com. v. Ford, 146 Mass. 131 ; Gertz
Com..v. McGuire, 84 Ky. 57. These v. Fitchburg, 137 Mass. 77.
statutes are to be strictly construed 3 Com. v. Gorham, 99 Mass. 420 ;
and the crimes mentioned in them Hilts v. Colvin, 14 Johns. 183; Pul-
will be presumed to be crimes at len v. PuUen, 43 N. J. Eq. 139.
common law. Williams v. Dicken- Contra by statute, Spiegel v. Hays,
son, 38 Fla. 90; Com. v. Minor, 89 118 N. Y. 660; Com. v. Sullivan, 150
Ky. 555; 13 S. W. Eep. 5. Nor Mass. 315; State v. Miller, 100 Mo.
should these statutes be so construed 606 ; People v. Rodrigo, 69 Cal. 601 ;
as to prevent one accused of crime State v. Adamson, 43 Minn. 196.
from testifying in his ovifn behalf ''Jones v. State (Tex., 1893), 32 S.
(Ranson y. State, 40 Ark. 176; Ray- W. Eep. 404; Card v. Foot, 57 Conn.
431. See g 354.
§ 323.]
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.
459
demeanor,^ though where a statute expressly provides that
the witness may be interrogated as regards a " conviction of
felony," proof of a misdemeanor is inadmissible.^ The cur-
rent of the decisions, however, supports the contrary view,
that a conviction for those infamous crimes only can be proved
which would have destroyed his competency at common law.'
Where a statute removes the common-law disability arising
from infamy, the confession by a witness that he has per-
jured himself in the same matter to which he now testifies
constitutes no objection to his competency.*
§323. Accomplices. — At common law an accomplice was
competent as a witness for or against the accused, even though
jointly indicted with him, provided he was not himself act-
uall}'^ a party to the record.' If they are jointly tried and the
evidence against either is insufBcient to convict, he may be
acquitted and discharged and be called to testify as a witness."
1 State V. PfefiEerlee, 36 Kan. 90;
Fischer v. Insurance Co., -83 Fed.
Rep. 544; Quigley v. Turner, 150
Mass. 108 ; Com. v. Ford, 146 Mass.
131; 15 N, E. Rep. 153 ; Helm v. State
(Miss., 1890), 7 S. Rep. 487.
2 Hanners v. McClelland, 74 Iowa,
318.
3 Bennett v. State, 24 Tex. App. 73 ;
Bartholomew v. People, 104 111. 601 ;
Card V. Foot, 57 Conn. 431 ; Coble v.
State, 31 Ohio St. 100; Com. v.
Dance, 8 Cush. 384 ; Eeddick v. State,
21 Tex. App. 267 ; People v. Cardan,
71 Cal. 195.
* People V. O'Neil, 109 N. Y. 251.
In United States v. Gates, 6 Fed.
Rep. 866, the court said: "In early
times the character of the crime was
determined by the punishment in-
flicted, but in modern times the act
itself, its nature, purpose and effect,
are looked at in determining whether
it is infamous or not."
5 As to presumptions respecting ac-
complices, see § 226.
s See ante, § 305. One who, solely
for the purpose of discovering and
procuring the punishment of crim-
inals, communicates with and aids
them without a criminal intent, is
not an accomplice. People v. Smith,
94 N. Y. 649; People v. Molins, 10
N. Y. S. 130; State v. McKean, 36
Iowa, 343 ; Com. v. Downing, 4 Gray
(Mass.), 29; Com. v. Baker, 39 N. E.
Rep. 513; 155 Mass. 387; Com. v.
Willard, 23 Pick. 476; Campbell v.
Com., 84 Pa. St. 187; Harrington
V. State, 36 Ala. 336 ; State v. Brown-
lee (Iowa, 1893), 51 N. W. Rep. 25.
Whether an accomplice shall be per-
mitted to turn "state's evidence,''
and when he does so, whether
he is entitled to exemption from
future prosecution on that account,
are wholly discretionary with the
public prosecutor. State v. Runnels,
28 Ark. 121. Mere knowledge that
an offense is being or has been com-
mitted does not render a party pos-
sessing such knowledge an accom-
plice. Alford V. State, 31 Tex. Crim.
Rep. 299 ; State v. Umble (Mo., 1893),
460 OOMPETENOT OF WITNESSES. [§ 323.
But accomplices jointly indicted are not competent witnesses,
for each other while the indictment is pending, though they
may be tried separately. They do not become competent for
each other until the defendant who is to testify as a witness
has his name taken from the record by a nolle prosequi or
an acquittal.' "When the defendants are separately indicted
they are of course competent for each other.^ So where the
common-law disability of convicted criminals has been abro-
gated by statute, or where it is removed by pardon or other-
wise, no valid reason is conceived to exist against the admission
of the testimony of a convicted accomplice upon the trial of
another person who may have been implicated with him in
the commission of crime.' "Where several are jointly tried it
is competent for the court to order the entering of a nolle
prosequi or to accept a plea of guilty on a promise of im-
munity or to order an acquittal for the express purpose of en-
abling an accomplice to testify for the prosecution.*
The admission of the testimony of accomplices who are
under indictment as witnesses for the prosecution is said,
however, to be largely in the discretion of the court." The
question is usually not only can the prisoner be convicted if
the accomplice does not testify, but can he be convicted if he
does testify. If, on the one hand, sufficient evidence has been
given upon which the jury may convict the accused without
receiving that of the accomplice, or if, on the other, the evi-
dence which was offered is so weak and conflicting that even
with his testimony no reasonable probability arises that a
22 S. W. Eep. 378; People v. Mc- State, 11 Colo. 170; Townsend v.
Gonegal, 136 N. Y. 63 ; Elizando v. Bush, 1 Conn. 267 ; State v. Walker
State, 31 Tex. Crim. Eep. 337; Peo- (Mo., 1888), 9 S. W, Rep. 646; Mus-
ple V. McGuire, 135 N. Y. 639. son v. Fales, 16 Mass. 335; Churchill
1 Noyes v. State, 40 N. J. L. 439 ; v. Suter, 4 id. 162.
State V. Barrows, 76 Me, 401 ; Carroll * State v. Graham, 41 N. J. L. 15;
T. State, 5 Neb. 31; Allen V. State, 10 Lindsay v. People, 63 N. Y. 143;
Ohio St. 287 ; McKenzie v. State, 24 State v. Lyon, 81 N. C. 600; United
Ark. 636. States v. Ford, 9 Otto (U. S.), 594;
^United States V. Hunter, ICranch, State v. Steifel, 106 Mo. 129; Oliver
446 ; Lucre v. State, 7 Baxter (Tenn.), v. Com., 77 Va. 590. See ante, § 305.
148. 5 People v. Whipple, 9 Cowen, 707 ;
■3 Taylor v. People, 13 Hun, 212; Com. v. Brown, 130 Mass. 279 ; Run-
Rex V. Westbeer, 1 Leach, 14; Rex nels v. State, 38 Ark. 121.
T. Fletcher, 1 Stra. 633 j Wisdom v.
§ 323.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES, 461
conviction will result, the court may reject him as a witness.^
An accomplice who voluntarily confesses his own guilt and
offers to testify against his criminal associates cannot demand
as of right any exemption from a prosecution for his own
crime.^ But such a witness whose evidence has aided mate-
rially in the conviction of another criminal certainly has a
strong moral claim to clemency, and, if he is subsequently
convicted of that crime, his moral claim should be recognized
by the pardoning power under such circumstances; and, partic-
ularly if his testimony was procured by a promise of immu-
nity, or during interviews with the public prosecutor, principles
of justice demand and the prevalent practice would sanction
the judicial recommendation of his case to the executive in
order that his pardon may be obtained.' But the voluntary
confession of an accomplice made under a promise of immu-
nity may be used against him on his subsequent trial where
he refuses subsequently thereto to testify against his associ-
ates in crime.* In consequence of the doubtful character of
the evidence of an accomplice, the law not only permits but
encourages his liberal and exhaustive cross-examination for the
1 Rex V, Mellor, Staff Sum. Ass'n, he testified fully and fairly. But it
1833 ; State v. Pratt, 98 Mo. 482 ; is equally clear that he cannot plead
Reg. V. Sparks, 1 F. & F. 388 ; Ray v. such fact in bar of an indictment
State, 1 Greene (Iowa), 816 ; Wight against him, nor avail himself of it
T. Rindskopf, 43 Wis, 344. upon his trial; for it is merely an
2 United States v. Ford, 99 U, S, equitable title to the mercy of the
594; United States v. Hinz, 85 Fed. executive, subject to the conditions
Eep. 733 ; Long v. State, 86 Ala. 36. stated, and can only come before the
5- State V. Graham, 41 N. J. L. 15; court by way of application to ppt
State V. Lyon, 81 N. C. 600; Neely off the trial in order to give the pris-
ly. State, 27 Tex. App. 324. Cf. Reg. oner time to apply to the executive
V, Garside, 2 Lew, C, C, 38 ; Long v. for that purpose." United States v.
State, 86 Ala. 36. " Accomplices not Ford, 99 U. S. 595.
■convicted of an infamous crime when ^ United States v. Hinz, 35 Fed.
separately tried are competent wit- Rep. 272 ; State v. Condry, 5 Jones'
nesses for or against each other. L. (N. C.) 418; Com. v, Knapp, 10
The universal usage is that such a Pick. (Mass.) 477; Runnels v. State,
iparty, if called and examined by the 28 Ark. 121 ; Wight v. Rindskopf, 43
«tate on the trial of his associates in Wis. 349 ; Neely v. State, 37 Tex.
guilt, will not be prosecuted for the App, 324; Alderman v. People, 4
same offense, provided it appears Mich. 411 ; Rex v. Gillis, 11 Cox C. C,
that he acted in good faith and that 69, See ante, § — , Confessions,
462
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.
[§ 324.
purpose of testing the credit due him while on the witness
stand.'
§ 324. Corroboration of accomplices. — While no presump-
tion of law exists against the credibility of the evidence of an
accomplice so that a conviction may be had upon his uncor-
roborated evidence alone,' the jury is usually instructed or
advised that the utmost caution should be employed in the re-
ception and consideration of accomplice evidence, or that it
should be submitted to the strictest scrutiny.' Accordingly
juries are generally advised that they may acquit the accused
if the evidence of the accomplice is not corroborated, though
a failure to so instruct is not ground for a new trial.*
'Com. V. Price, 10 Gray (Mass.),
472 ; Lee v. State, 21 Ohio St. 151 ;
Marler v. State, 67 Ala. 55 ; Hamil-
ton V. People, 29 Mich. 173. Of.
Craft V. Com., 81 Ky. 349. "Whether
a witness is an accomplice has been
held to be a question for the jury.
People V. Bollinger, 71 Cai. 17. The
defense may show that an accom-
plice testifying for the state does so
with the expectation of gain or ini-
munity, and it is immaterial whether
there has been any actual agreement
to that effect with the public prose-
cuting officer or not. Allen v. State,
10 Ohio St. 387 ; People v. Langtree,
64 Cal. 256; TuUis v. State, 30 Ohio
St. 200; United States v. Hinz, 35
Fed. Rep. 273. The jury need not
be convinced that he is an accom-
plice beyond a reasonable doubt.
Com. V. Ford, 111 Mass. 394.
2 Bacon v. State, 23 Fla. 51 ; Porter
V. State, 76 Ga. 658 ; State v. Prater,
26 S. C. 198; 2 S. E. Rep. 108; State
V. Hawkins, 100 Mo. 666 ; Wisdom v.
State, 11 Colo. 170; State v. Jackson,
106 Mo. 174; Rountree v. State, 88
Ga. 457 ; State v. Dana, 10 Atl. Rep.
727; 59 Vt. 614; State v. Miller, 97
N. C. 484; People v, Gallagher, 75
Mich. 512; People v. O'Brien, 60
Mich. 8. See, also, ante, § 226.
8 See ante, Presumptions of Fact,
Accomplices, § 236. "When the
only proof against a person charged
with a criminal offense is the evi-
dence of an accomplice uncorrobo-
rated in any material particular, it
is the duty of the judge to warn the
jury that it is unsafe to convict any
person upon such evidence though
they have a legal right to do so."
Stephen's Dig. Ev., art. 121.
■* State V. Potter, 42 Vt. 495 ; State
V. Litchfield, 58 Me. 267; Ingalls v.
State, 48 Wis. 647; State v. Miller,
97 N. C. 484; Carroll v. Com., 84 Pa.
St. 107. See generally upon the cor-
roboration of accomplices, Surapter
V. State, 11 Fla. 247; State v. ,Hol-
land, 83 N. C. 624; Tisdale v. State,
17 Tex. App. 444 ; Lumpkin v. State,
68 Ala. 58; State v. Dana, 59 Vt. 614;
10 Atl. Rep. 737; Craft v. Com., 80
Ky. 349; White v. State, 53 Miss.
216; Cheatham v. State (Miss., 1890),
7 S. Rep. 294 ; State v. Prater, 26 S.
C. 198; 2 S. E. Rep. 108; Ulmer v.
State, 14 Ind. 53; Powers v. State,
44 Ga. 209; State v. Bayonne, 23 La.
Ann. 78; State v. Williamson, 42
Conn. 261 ; Smith v. State, 28 Tex.
App. 309; Earl v. People, 73 111. 329;
State V. Watson, 31 Mo. 861 ; State
V. Litchfield, 58 Me. 267; Com. v.
§ 324:.] OOliPETENOT OF WITNESSES. 463
The credibility of the testimony of an accomplice and the
necessity for evidence corroborative of it before a conviction
can be had are involved in some confusion. The proposition
that an accused person may be convicted on the evidence of
an accomplice alone, and that the testimony of such a witness
should be corroborated, are both sound, though they involve a
seeming inconsistency. The proposition that an accomplice
must be corroborated is not equivalent to the proposition that
there must be cumulative testimony from some other witness
to the same facts to which he has testified. " If the testimony
of the accomplice, his manner of testifying, his a-ppearance
upon the witness stand, impress the jury with the truth of his
statement, there is no inflexible rule of law which prevents a
conviction," ^ provided, of course, the jury believe that the
evidence of the accomplice tends to connect the accused with
the crime charged.^
The character and degree of corroboration required may,
to a certain extent, be measured by the enormity of the crime
alleged, the moral perversity involved in its commission and
' the punishment which may be inflicted,' so that conviction of
a misdemeanor might be sustained without the production
of independent corroborative evidence before the jury where
such evidence would be required in the case of a felony.* The
corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice need not ex-
tend to every material fact.' If, however, independent cor-
roboration by other witnesses is required in any case, it must
refer to that portion of the testimony of the accomplice which
is material to the guilt of the prisoner. The corroborative
evidence must tend to prove the guilt of the accused by con-
necting him with the crime committed, for it is of no impor-
tance whatever to corroborate the accomplice on irrelevant or
immaterial details, or to show that he has not perjured himself
Snow, m Mass. 411; State v.Moran, Reg. v. Young, 19 Cox C. C. 371;
34 Iowa, 453. McCIory v. Wright, 10 Ir. Law, 514;
iCoxT. Com., 135 Pa. St. 103; Col- Rountree v. State, 88 Gh. 457.
lins V. People, 98 III. 584. 5 state v. Allen, 57 Iowa, 451;
2 See United States v. Reeves, 38 State v. Hennessy, 55 id. 399 ; United
Fed. Rep. 404. States v. Howell^ 56 Fed. Rep. 31 ;
SBellv. State, 73 Ga. 572; Rex v. People v. Elliott, 106 N. Y. 288;
Jarvis, 3 M. & R. 40. Lumpkin v. State, 68 Ala. 56.
«Reg. V. Farler, 8 C. & P. 106;.
464: COMPETENOT OF WITNESSES. [§ 324.
in stating matters not pertinent to the issue on trial and upon
which he had no interest to testify falsely. The corrobora-
tion must bear directly or indirectly, not upon his general
character for truthfulness, but upon the question whether, in
this particular case and upon the facts involved, his testimony
is reliable and worthy of credit by the jury in determining
the guilt or innocence of the prisoner.'
The rule of the common law requiring the testimony of an
accomplice to be corroborated under certain circumstances
has been confirmed by statutes in some of the states. Thus,
in New York, "a conviction cannot be had upon the testi-
mony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such
•other evidence as tends to connect defendant with the com-
mission of the crime." ^ The confession of the accused is
•competent as corroborative evidence of the testimony of an
accomplice.' "Whether the testimony of an accomplice is cor-
roborated so that the guilt of the prisoner is proved beyond a
reasonable doubt is a question for the jury to decide.* But
M-hether the evidence of the accomplice shall go to the jury
is a distinct question for the court. If corroborative circum-
stances are proved from which, with the evidence of the ac-
•complice, reasonable men may infer the existence of the guilt
1 Com. V. Bos worth, 23 Pick. 397, Grindell, 15 Col. 301 ; Com. v. Chase,
599; Com. v. Holmes, 137 Mass. 434; 147 Mass. 597.
State V. Jackson, 106 Mo. 174; Mar- 2 People v. Everhardt, 104 N. Y.
Jer V. State, 67 Ala. 55; State v. 594; People v. Ogle, 104 id. 515; Peo-
AUen, 57 Iowa, 431; United States pie v. Smith (Cal., 1893), 38 Pac. Rep.
V. Tbanez, 53 Fed. Rep. 536 ; Com. 58 ; People v. O'Neill, 109 N. T. 351 ;
V. Holmes, 137 Mass. 424; Cohen v. People v. Elliott, 106 N. Y. 388;
■.State, 11 Tex. App. 622; People v. Bowling Green v. Com., 79Ky. 604;
•Clough, 73 Cal. 348; 15 Pac. Rep. 5; State v. Godell, 8 Oreg. 30; People
Kilrow V. Com., 89 Pa. St. 480; v. Clough, 73 Cal. 348 ; People v. Ey-
■Coleman v. State, 44 Tex. 109; Peo- land, 38 Hun, 568; People v. O'Neill,
pie V. Elliott, 106 N. Y. 388; People 48 id. 36; Middleton v. State, 53 Ga.
V. Ogle, 104 id. 511 ; Watson v. Com., 527; Lumpkin v. State, 68 Ala. 56;
■95 Pa. St. 418; People v. Everhardt, Burney v. State, 87 Ala. 80; Myers
104 N. Y. 591 ; Com. v. Drake, 124 v. State, 7 Tex. App. 640. See, also,
Ma.ss. 31; State v. Kellerman, 13 McCalla v. State, 66 Ga; 346; State
Xan. 135; State v. Thornburg, 36 v. Hyer, 39 N. J. L. 598; People v.
Iowa, 80; State v. Walker (Mo., Courtney, 28 Hun, 589.
1888), 9 S. W. Rep. 646; Crowell v. 'Partee v. State, 67 Ga. 570.
State, 24 Tex. App. 204; State v. ''Com. v. Holmes, 127 Mass. 424;
Banks, 40 La. Ann, 736; People v. People v. Everhardt, 104 N. Y. 591.
§ 32i.J
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.
465
of the accused, the court'is justified in submitting the evidence
of tbe accomplice to the jury under such a statute.^ Corrobo-
ration b}' evidence independent of accomplice evidence is not
dispensed with where several accomplices are produced as
witnesses against a prisoner. The accomplices are not deemed
to corroborate each other.''
1 People V. Jaehne, 7 N. E, Rep.
290 (N. y., 1889). That an accom-
plice is testifying under an express
agreement of immunity is an objec-
tion to his credibility alone. Black
V. State, 59 Wis. 471 ; Olive v. State,
11 Neb. 1.
2 Bex V. Noakes, 5 C. & P. 326;
80
Whitlow V. State (Tex., 1893), 13 S.
W. Rep. 865 ; United States v. Hinz,
32 Fed. Rep. S73; People v. O'Neill,
109 N. Y. 251 ; State v. Williamson,
42 Conn. 361. But a failure to charge
the .I'ury to this effect is not revers-
ible error. McConnell v. State (Tex.,
1898), 18 S. W. Rep. 645.
CHAPTEE XXIII.
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
,330.
83t.
333.
333.
834.
335.
336.
337.
Order for witnesses to with-
draw from court-room.
Direct examination and cross-
examination distinguislied.
Refusal to testify, wlien a
contempt — Employment
of interpreter.
Mode of conducting direct
examination.
Questions put by the judge
or by members of the jury.
Leading questions — Wlien
allowable on direct exami-
nation.
Responsiveness of answers.
Witness may refresh his
memory by referring to a
memorandum or writing.
) 338. Character of the writing
used to refresh memory of
the witness.
339. Cross-examination — Its pur-
pose and value.
340. Power of cross - examina-
tion — Its extent.,
341. Redirect examination.
342. Recalling witnesses.
343. Receiving evidence out of
court.
344. Taking the view by the jury.
315. " Real evidence " — Physical
examination by the jury
in court — Identification.
346. Right of the defendant in a
criminal trial to confront
the witnesses against him.
346a. The accused as a witness in a
criminal prosecution.
§ 330. Order for witnesses to withdraw from court-room.
The presiding judge may, when he considers it necessary to
a proper administration of justice, order the exclusion of all
other witnesses from the room during the examination of a
witness. The order, though not perhaps of right,* is seldom
refused where it is at all evident that the ascertainment of
•Vance v. State (Ark., 1893), 19
S. W. Rep. 1066; State v. Fitzsini-
ons, ^0 Mo. 236; Riley v. State, 88
Ala. 93; State v. Davis, 48 Kan. 1;
Benaway v. Conyne, 3 Chand. (Wis.)
214; Barnes v. State, 88 Ala. 204;
Kelly V. People, 17 Colo. 130; 29
Pac. Rep. 805; Nelson v. State, 3
Swan (Tenn.), 237; Binfield v. State
(Neb., 1884), 19 N. W. Rep. 607; Er-
rissman v. Errissman, 35 111. 136;
Zoldoske v. State, 82 Wis. 580; 53
N. W. Rep. 778 ; Taylor v. Lawson,
3 C. & P. 543 ; Heath v. State, 7 Tex.
App. 464 ; Com. v. Thompson (Mass.,
1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 1111; Roberts v.
Com. (Ky., 1893), 33 S. W. Rep. 845;
Taylor v. State, 130 Ind. 66; Hainea
V. Territory, 3 Wyo. 166.
§ 330.] EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 467
truth will be advanced thereby.^ If a witness stays in the
court-room, though by inadvertence, after the judge has or-
dered the witnesses to withdraw, the court may, in its discre-
tion, refuse to allow him to be examined,^ and its action in so
doing will not be reversible error unless a party's substantial
rights are shown to have been prejudiced thereby.' The rule
that a witness, by thus disobeying the court, renders his tes- <
timony subject to exclusion is not universally recognized. It
is manifestly unfair to deprive a party, who is not in fault, of
testimony on which he relies, and on which, perhaps, his
whole case is founded, because the witness, out of careless-
ness, obstinacy or caprice, refuses or neglects to obey the
order of the court. So it has been held that the testimony of
such a witness cannot be excluded, but must be received, and
the jury may be instructed that they may take into consid-
eration the fact that he remained in court in determining his
credibility.* The witness may be proceeded against for con-
tempt in disobeying the order.' After witnesses not under
examination have been directed to withdraw, it is within the
discretion of the court to permit one or more of them to re-
main;* and an exception will always be made in the case of
1 Thomas v. State, 29 Ga. 287 ; counsel who is also a witness cannot
Hellems v. State, 23 Ark. 207. An be excluded even where the right to
expert witness may be excluded in have the witnesses separated is stat-
a criminal case. Vance v. State utory); State v. Thomas, 111 Ind.
(Ark., 1893), 19 S. W. Rep. 1066. 516; 13 N. E. Rep. 85; Smith v.
sSthredge v. Hobbs, 77 Ga. 251; State, 4 Lea (Tenn.), 438; Taylor v.
State V. Brookshire, 2 Ala. 303; Mc- State, 29 N. E. Rep. 415; 130 Ind. 66;
Leon V. State, 16 Ala. 673 ; Trujillo State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 179 ; Cook
v. Territory (N. Mex., 1898), 30 Pac. v. State, 18 S. W. Rep. 412; 30 Tex.
Rep. 870; People v. Sam Lung, 70 App. 607; Grant v. State; 15 S. E.
Cal. 516; Hey v. Com., 33 Gratt. Rep. 488; 89 Ga. 393; State v. Lock-
(Va.) 946. wood, 58 Vt. 878 ; Lassiter v. State,
'Carlton v. Com. (Ky., 1892), 18 67 Ga. 789; Sartorius v. State, 24
S. W. Rep. 535; Cook v. State, 30 Miss. 602; Pleasant v. State, 15 Ark.
Tex. App. 607; 18 S. W. Rep. 413; 624; Porter v. State, 2 Ind. 435.
Lassiter v. State, 67 Ga. 739. 5 See cases cited supra.
< Roberts v. Com. (Ky., 1898), 32 « Indianapolis Cab. Co, v. HeiT-
S. W. Rep. 895 ; Hubbard v. Hub- man, infra; Riley v. State, 88 Ala.
bard, 7 0reg. 42; O'Bryan v. Allen, 93; Barnes v. State, 88 Ala. 204;
.95 Mp. 68; 8 S. W. Rep. 225; Boal- State v. Hopkinb, 50 Vt. 816; Carson
mayer v. State, 20 S. W. Rep. 1102; v, State, 80 Ga. 170.
31 Tex. Crim. Rep. 473 (holding that
4r68 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§§ 331, 332.
a party to the suit, his attorney,* an officer of the court,^ or a
juror' who Is also a witness, and he will not be required to
withdraw.*
§331. Direct examination and cross-examination dis-
tinguished.— The direct examination of a witness is his first
examination by the party in whose behalf he is called to tes-
tify. His cross-examination is his subsequent examination by
the adverse party upon the same subject-matter to which he
has testified upon his direct examination.'
§332. Refusal to testify, when a contempt — Employ-
ment of interpreter. — A witness who refuses to be sworn or
to answer a relevant question without a satisfactory excuse is
guilty of contempt of court. But the judicial power to pun-
ish for contempt in refusing to testify is confined to courts of
record and to legislative bodies in the absence of any express
statute granting it to other officials whose duty it may be to
interrogate witnesses.^ A court may punish as a contempt
the refusal of a witness to testify before a commissioner ap-
pointed by it to take depositions,' or before the grand jury
over which it exercises supervision,' or at an examination before
1 Everett V. Lowdham, 5 C. & P. 6 -white v. Morgan Co., 119 Ind.
91. 338; People v. Rice, ION. Y. S. 270;
2 Kelly V. People, 17 Colo. 130; 39 Barnes v. Reilly (Mich., 1893), 45 N.
Pac. Rep. 805. W. Rep. 1016 ; Brunger v. Smith, 49
3 State V. Vari (8. C, 1892), 14 8. Fed. Rep. 124; Bradley v. Fertilizer
E. Rep. 893; 35 S. C. 175. Co. (N. C, 1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 69;
< Allen V. Com. (Ky., 1888), 9 S. W. Llewellyn's Case, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. R.
Rep. 703; Kissam v. Forrest, 25 136; Pittman v. Hagaiis (Qa., 1893),
Wend. 651 ; Indianapolis Cabinet Co. 16 S. E. Rep. 353; Enos v. Garrett,
V. Herrman (Ind., 1893), 34 N. E. 3 Pa. Dis. Co. R. 86 ; Ex parte Wood-
Rep. 5'i9. The exclusion of a party worth, 39 W. L. Bui. 315 (contempt
is ground for a new trial. Schneider before notary).
V. Haas, 14 Oreg. 174; Mcintosh v. ^ Robb's Case, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep.
Mcintosh, 44 N. W. Rep. 593; 443. "A justice of the peace, though
Chandler v. Avery, 47 Hun, 9 ; Gar- he cannot commit a witness for con-
mon V. State, 66 Miss. 196. The tempt, may bind a party refusing to
court will not, however, prohibit testify to answer an indictment for
witnesses who have been excluded obstructing justice." Albright v.
from reading newspapers which con- Lapp, 26 Pa. St. 101.
tain the evidence in the case. Com. 8 Ex parte Harris, 4 Utah, 5 ; Peo-
V. Hersey, 84 Mass. 173. pie v. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 74; Ex parte
s Anderson's Law Diet. See post, Stice, 70 Cal. 51,
§ 341, as to redirect examination.
§ 333.] EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 469
trial/ and it ma}' do so as often as the witness refuses to testify.^
Where the statutory right is conferred upon a witness to answer
only pertinent questions, he cannot be coinmitted for contempt
in refusing to reply to a question which is not pertinent;' and
generall}', where the court has not acquired proper jurisdiction
of the cause, the witness who refuses to testify is not in con-
tempt.''
In the absence of a statute requiring it, the employment of
an interpreter where a witness is unable to speak or under-
stand the English language is discretionary,' though when a
party was deprived of the testimony of a material witness by
the refusal of the court to employ an interpreter, it was held
good ground for a new trial.^ A witness may act as an inter-
preter for another witness,'' and should be sworn as such to
interpret faithfully ; ' while if he is ineflQcient as an interpreter
his restatement or interpretation may be impeached for inac-
curacy by the adverse party.'
§ 333. Mode of conducting tlie direct examination. —
After the witness shall have been sworn and asked to state
his name in order that his identity may be ascertained or con-
firmed, he is to be questioned in regard to his knowledge of
the matter in issue. The jury has a right to know every fact
which Avill aid them in estimating the credit of the witness.
1 Fenlon v. Dempsey, 31 Abb. N. C. 53 ; State v. Severson, 78 Iowa, 653 ;
391. Swan v. State, 26 Tex. A pp. 115.
2Exparte Stice, 70 Cal. 51. « Chicago, etc. Co. v. Shenk, 131
3 Ex parte Zeehandelaur, 71 Cal. 111. 283 ; 23 N. E. Eep. 436. As to the
338; In re McKnight, 11 Mont. 126; custom of employing interpreters,
In re Odell, 6 Defla. Sur. 344. see under the word " translation,"
* People V. Warner, -51 Hun. 53." Anderson's Dictionary. See, also,
As regards the power of the court to Amory v. Fellows, 5 Mass. 325.
commit a witness for contempt in 'Chicago, etc. Co. t. Shenk, 131
failing to attend, see ante, ^§ 284, 111. 283.
289. A publisher of a newspaper 8 People v. Dowdigan, 67 Mich. 95.
who refuses to testify or to give the ^Skaggs v. State, 108 Ind. 53;
real name of the author of a libelous Schnier v. People, 23 111. 17. The
article may be punished for con- assistance of one or more bystanders
tempt, though he is himself under who are not sworn to interpret may
indictment for the libel. Pledger v. be allowed the interpreter where he
State 77 Ga. 243. is in doubt. United States v. Gibert,
5 Horn V. State (Ala., 1893), 13 S. 2 Bumn, 19.
Rep. 339; Staggs v. State, 108 Ind.
470 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. ' [§ 333.
He may therefore be asked to explain his motives,' and to
state who he is, whence he comes, where he lived and other'
personal details of a like character.^ It is not permissible, ex-
cept in certain cases which will be discussed later, to ask the
witness leading questions, i. e., questions which by their form or
character " suggest to the witness the answer which the party
desires and expects him to make and leads him to make it.'"
Thus, questions which take the form of a statement of fact,
and suggest thereby that the witness is to deny or affirm it by
replying merely "yes" or "no," may be given as examples of
leading questions.
Somewhat analogous to leading questions and equally inad-
missible are those which assume particular facts in issue or
material thereto as proved which have not been, or certain
answers to have been made to prior questions when no such
answers have been given.* Except as elsewhere explained, in
the case of the examination of experts, it is not permissible
during the direct examination to question the witness in re-
gard to matters which are not within his personal knowledge,
or to endeavor by assuming or leading questions to elicit his
opinion or inference as to any matter of fact.' But in certain
iBrooken v. State (Tex., 1888), 9 Davis y. Willis, 67 Hun, 650 ; Thotnp-
S. W. Rep. 735. son v. Ray (Ga., 1893), 18 S. E. Rep.
2 Avery v. Fitzgerald, 7 S. W. 59; Bostie v. State, 94 Ala. 45; Peo-
Eep. 6. pie v. Lange, 90 Mich. 454; Foster
3 1 Greenl. Ev., § 434 ; Anderson's v. Dickerson, 64 Vt. 283 ; 34 Atl. Rep.
Law Dictionary. See, also, Chat- 253 ; People v. Fong Ah Sing, 70 Cal.
tanooga, etc. Co. v. Huggins, 89 Ga. 8 ; Graham v. McReynolda, 90 Tenn.
494; Alabama, etc. Co. v. Hill, 93 673.
Ala. 514; Hicks v. Sharp, 89 Ga. . ^ a question in the following form
811; 15 S. E. Rep. 814; Cannon v. h^s been held not to be a leading
People (111., 1893), 80 N. E. Rep. 1077; question: "You may state whether
Brice v. Miller, 85 S. C. 273, 537 ; you were directed by defendant, or
Daly V. Melendy, 82 Neb. 853 ; Cling- any one of its employees or its
man v. Irvine, 40 111. App. 608 ; Bald- agents, to get off of the opposite end
ridge, etc. Co. v. Calrett, 75 Tex. of this coach from the end that you
638; Spear v. Richardson, 87 N. H. did get off." McDona'd v. Illinois
26; State v. Johnson, 29 La. Ann. Cent. R. Co. (Iowa, 1893), 55 N. W.
717; Wilson v. McCuUough, 23 Pa. Rep. 103. Nor is a question leading
St. 440. which merely repeats what a wit-
* Robertson v. Craver (Iowa, 1892), ness has testified to. Brice v. Miller,
55 N. W. Rep. 492; Hays v. State 15 S. E. Rep. 272; 35 S. 0. 537. See
(Tex., 1893), 20 S. W, Rep. 861 ; §§ 185-198.
§ 334.] EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 4T1
circumstances leading questions are allowable, and it is largely
a matter over which the court has control, and upon which it
may exercise a sound discretion whether, upon the facts in
any particular case, leading questions should be permitted to
be put in the direct examination.^ If the discretion is grossly
abused to the substantial injury of either party, error will
lie.^ A witness may be permitted to give his testimonj^ in a
narrative form, and either party may, when he states facts
which are irrelevant, stop him and move to have 'such fact*
striciien out.'
§ 334. Questions propounded by the judge or jurors. —
The policy of the law requires that the triers of fact should
not entertain, or at least should not manifest, any partiality
during the examination of the witnesses. Where the trial is
by a Jury, it is not only the right but it is the duty of the
judge to decide all preliminary questions of fact bearing on
the competency of witnesses or of evidence, and to enable
him to do so he must question the witnesses. No objection
can be made so long as his questions or remarks are not aimed
to elicit facts bearing materially on the issue. Accordingly
the court, in ruling on the competency of the evidence offered,
may state the theory and grounds on which it was offered
' 1 Van Doren V. Jelliffe, 20 N. Y. S. L. 455; Van Doren v. Jellifife, 20
636; Donnell v. James, 13 Ala. 490; N. Y. S. 1; 1 Misc. Eep. 354; Whit-
Ducker v. Wilson (N. C, 1893), 16 Ing v. Miss. V. I. Co., 76 Wis, 592:
S. E. Eep. 854; McCIain v. Com., Schuster v. State, 80 Wis. 107; 49
110 Pa. St. 263; Walker v. Duns- N. W. Eep. 30; Brassell v. State, 91
paugh,20N.Y. 170;Com. V. Chaney, Ala. 45; 8 S. Eep. 679; Foster v.
148 Mass. 8 ; Lander v. Lander, 5 Dickinson, 64 Vt. 235 ; 24 All. Rep.
Ir. C. L. Eep. 27 ; Wells v. Jackson, 255 ; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Shepherd,
etc. Co., 48 N. H. 491. "Questions 85 Ga. 751: Badder v. Keefer, 91
suggesting the answer which the Mich. 611; 52 N. W. Rep. 60; Union
person putting the question wishes Pac. Ey. Co. v. O'Brien, 46 Fed. Rep.
or expects to receive, or suggesting 538; Weber Wagon Co. v. Kehl, 139
disputed facts as to which the wit- III. 644; 29 N. E. Rep. 714; O'Neill
ness is to testify, must not, if objected v. Howe, 9'N. Y. S. 746; Walker v.
to by the adverse party, be asked in Dunspaugh, 20 N. Y. 170; Obernali^
an examination in chief or a re- v. Edgar, 28 Neb. 70 ; 44 N. W. Rep.
examination, except with the per- 82; White v. White, 82 Cal. 427.
mission of the court ; but such ques- ' Northern Pac. R. E. Co. v.
tionsmay beaskedincross-examina- Charless, 51 Fed. Eep, 562; 2 C. C.
tion." Stephen's Dig. Ev., art. 128. A. 380.
^Gwnter v. Watson, 4 Jones' (N. C.)
472 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§ 334.
and rejected, and may estimate its probable effect if it had
been received, provided no language is used that will improp-
erly bias the jury for or against either party.' Indeed it has
been held that the active participation of the court in the ex-
amination of a witness,^ even to the extent of suggesting to
counsel the manner in which the questions should be properly
framed,' or warning a witness that if he answers a certain
question he may have to answer another,* though not a com-
mendable practice, is not ground for a new trial unless a party
is actually prejudiced thereby.'
A witness may very properly be questioned by the court as
to his understanding of a question which has been asked him
by counsel," and the court may, at any time, in order to ex-
pedite the administration of justice, peremptoril}'^ check and
silence a very voluble or abusive witness," or interpose sua
■ spofite and without the objection of counsel,^ and particularly
if a party has no counsel,^ to exclude incompetent evidence.
Sometimes, as a matter of practice, jurors are permitted to
interrogate a witness, and his answers, when relevant, are not
objectionable because thus infoi'mallj' obtained. A lengthy
examination by a juror, during which the juror's mental atti-
tude or bias towa,rds the parties or the issue is exhibited,
should not be permitted or encouraged.'"
A very broad line of demarcation should be drawn and
'Queen Ins. Co. v. Studebaker, < Insurance Co. v. Slowitch, 55 N.
117 Ind. 416; Thompson v. Ish, 99 Y. Super. Ct. 453.
Mo.166; Keith v. Wells (Colo., 1890), 5 gee Sharp v. State, 51 Ark. 147.
28 Pao. Eep. 991; State v. Milling 6 state v. Mathews, 98 Mo. 125.
^. C. 1892), US. E. Rep. 884: Hodge 'Robinson v. State, 83 Ga. 535;
V. State (Fla., 1890), 7 S. Rep. 593. Bourden v. Bailes, 101 N. C. 613.
•Robinson v. State, 83 Ga. 535; SDurrett v. State, 63 Ala. 434;
Hodge V. State (Fla., 1890), 7 S. Rep. People v. Turcott, 65 Cal. 136.
893; Hudsbn v. Hudson (Ga., 1893), SMcClure v. Com., 81 Ky. 448.
16 S. E. Eep. 849; Sanders v. Bag- •"State v. Merkley (Iowa, 1888), 39
well (S. C, 1893). 15 S. E. Rep. 714; N. W. Rep. HI. Sometimes a de-
Bauer V. Beall (Colo., 1889), 33 Pac. fendant is permitted by statute to
Eep. 345; O'Conner v. Ice Co., 56 make a personal statement under
N. Y. Super. Ct. 410 (witness called oath to the jury of his defense. He
and examined by court over objec- is not, in such a case, a witness, nor
tion of counsel). can he be examined or cross-exam-
' Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. John- ined by the jurors or by counsel,
son {Ga., 1893), 18 S. E Rep. 816. Cf. The court should, of itsown motion,
coiUiu, Jefferson V. State, 80 Ga. 16. protect him from the questioning
§ 334.J
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
473
recognized between the competency of evidence and its credi-
bility. Tlie admissibility of evidence is a judicial question
not within the province of the jury,* and no remark which is
made by the judge during the examination of a witness as to
his competency or the relevancy or admissibility of his evi-
dence, or the reason for its exclusion or admission, can be urged
as ground for a new trial.^ But the weight and credibility
of testimony are for the jury, and all judicial observations or re-
marks upon the credibility of a witness or the amount of
weight to be given to his evidence which are made duri?}g/ the
examination of a witness are improper and may be objected
to.' That the remarks were inadvertently made is immaterial
if a party is substantially prejudiced by them,* though it
seems the error may be remedied by a prompt withdrawal
or explanation of the objectionable words,* or by an instruc-
tion to the jury to disregard them.®
and interference of counsel, or of
any other person, and a neglect to
do so, if objection is promptly made,
will be ground for reversal. Han-
kins V. State (Fla., 1892), 10 S. Rep.
8i3.
iSee ante, §g 11-13.
estate V. Young, 105 Mo. 634;
Patterson v. State, 86 Ga. 70 ; Lewis
V. State (Ga., 1893), IS S. E. Rep.
697; Com. v. Ward (Mass.), 33 N. E.
Rep. 663; Arnold v. State, 81 Wis.
278; Butler v. State (Ga., 1893), 16
S. E. Rep. 894 ; State v. Turner, 36
S. C. 534. In a case of homicide the
witness was in the room and was
repeatedly questioned as to the exact
spot on which he was sitting. On
his answering evasively the court
said: "You must have seen a part
of what was going on, didn't you? "
Adding, " We all know that if any-
thing is going on in a room it is a
slight circumstance where a man
sits. He may turn his chair or turn
around. He is not fixed like a pillar
of wood. The jury understand that
perfectly well. It is a waste of time
to try and enlighten them on the
subject.'' Held no error. Carthaus
V. State, 78 Wis. 560; 47 N. W. Rep.
679.
'Sharp T. State, 51 Ark. 147
Stale V. Raymond, 53 N. J. L. 230
People V. Wood, 126 N. Y. 249
Shepherd v. State, 31 Neb. 389
Drunker v. Cummins (Ind., 1S93), 32
N. E. Rep. 732 ; Sterling v. Callahan,
94 Mich. 536; Hudson v. Hudson
(Ga., 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 349; State
V. Jacobs, 106 N. C. 693 ; People v.
Fleming, 14 N. Y. S. 200; People v.
Wood (N. Y., 1891), 27 N. E. Rep.
362 ; Campbell v. State, 30 Tex. App.
369; People v. Willard, 93 Cal. 482;
State V. Lucas (Oreg., 1893), 33 Pac.
Rep. 538; People v. Hull, 86 Mich.
449; Bone v. State, 86 Ga. 108; New-
berry V. State, 26 Fla. 334.
i Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113.
* Johnston v. State, 94 Ala. 35;
Reinhold v. State, 130 Ind. 467; 30
N. E. Rep. 306; Ryan v. State, 83
Wis. 486; Com. v. Ward (Mass.,
1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 693; State v.
Black, 42 La. Ann. 861; Wynn v.
City R. R. Co. (Ga., 1893), 17 S. E.
Rep. 649.
'People V. Northey, 77 Cal. 618;
Vann v. State, 83 Ga. 44.
474
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
[§ 335.
§335. Leading questions — When allowaMe on direct
examination. — ■ The general rule rejecting leading questions
as above stated is subject to several important exceptions.'
Thus, if the witness on his direct examination manifest hos-
tility to the party who called him by coloring his testimony
to favor his opponent or by an appearance of unwillingness
to answer or by attempting to conceal what he knows, he
may be asked leading questions.^ Leading questions may be
propounded not only to an unwilling witness but to one who
is forgetful as well,' or who is very young and inexperienced,*
or who is ignorant of the language,' or to one whose memory,
while clear as to the main facts of a complicated transaction,
1 Hoody V. Eowell, 17 Pick. 498.
In this case the law on this point
was thus stated by the chief justice:
" The court have no doubt that it is
within t^ie discretion of a judge at
the trial, under particular circum-
stances, to permit a leading question
to be put to one's own witness ; as
when be is manifestly reluctant and
hostile to the interest of the party
calling him, or where he has ex-
hausted his memory, without stat-
ing the particulars required, where it
is a proper name, or other fact which
cannot be significantly pointed to by
a general interrogatory, or where
the witness is a child of tender
years, whose attention can be called
to the matter required only by a
pointed or leading question. So a
judge may, in his discretion, pro-
hibit certain leading questions from
being put to an adversary's witness,
where the witness shows a strong
interest or bias in favor of the cross-
examining party, and needs only an
intimation to say whatever is most
favorable to that party. The wit-
ness may have personally concealed
such bias in favor of one party to
induce the other to call him and
make him his witness; or the party
calling him may be compelled to do
80, to prove some single fact neces-
sary to his case. This discretionary
power to vary the general rule is to
be exercised only so far as the pur-
poses of justice plainly require It,
and is to be regulated by the cir-
cumstances of each case." And see
Donell V. Jones, 13 Ala. 490.
2 State V. Tall, 43 Minn. 278 ; Meix-
ell V. Feezor, 43 III. App. 180 : Ro-
senthal V. Bilger (Iowa, 1393), 53 N.
W. Rep. 255; McBride v. Wallace,
62 Mich. 451; State v. Bener, 64 Me.
267; Doran v. Mullen, 78 111. 342;
Navarro v. State, 24 Tex. App. 378,
505; Bradshaw v. Combs, 103 111.
428.
3 Born V. Rosenow (Wis., 1893),
54 N. W. Rep. 1089; King v. Rail-
road Co., 36 N. Y. S. 973; Graves v.
Merchants', etc. Bank (Iowa, 1891),
49 N. W. Rep. 65; St. Paul F. & M.
Ins. Co. V. Gothell, 35 Neb. 351.
i Palson V. State (Ind., 1893), 35
N. E. Rep. 907; Proper v. State
(Wis., 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 1035.
Thus in a prosecution for commit-
ting a rape on a child the state was
allowed to ask the prosecuting wit-
ness, "Do you know that boy over
there?" pointing to the accused
party. Paschal v. State, 89 Ga. 303 ;
15 S. E. Rep. 323.
* Navarro v. State, 24 Tex. 378; 6
S. W. Rep. 543.
§ 335.] EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 475
is weak and undecided as regards the minor facts, items or
dates which go to compose it.'
In that portion of the direct examination which is merely
introductory, leading questions are allowed,^ as where counsel
are permitted, instead of asking a witness what was said, to
ask him whether particular statements or cpmmunications
were made in his hearing, for the purpose of contradicting
another witness who had previously testified that they were
not made.' So, for the sole purpose of refreshing the memory
of one's own witness, counsel may ask him on his direct exami-
ination if he did not at a prior date state certain facts which are
•not consistent with his present statements.* So where the mem-
ory of the witness is faint, the party may question him upon
unimportant and irrelevant but suggestive facts,' or may ask
the witness what was his uniform habit or routine of acting in
connection with certain transactions,* if the evidence of the
unimportant fact or the business routine will suggest to the
memorj"- of the witness a relevant fact which has been for-
gotten by him.' The witness may also be asked if he men-
tioned a fact which he has himself forgotten to another person,
and if he replies aflTirmatively the other person is competent
to testify to such a fact.^ And if a witness is questioned as
to names which he has forgotten, a list of names may be read
over to him for the purpose of refreshing his memorj'^.'
1 A witness who on direct exam- 'Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
ination denies all knowledge of the Bair, 87 Pa. St. 134; Cannon v.
facts which she is called to prove. People (111., 1893), 30 N. E. Rep.
but subsequently admits she sup- 1037 ; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. O'Brien,
pressed the truth, may be recalled, 49 Fed. Rep. 538 ; 4 U. S. App. 321 ;
on motion, though the party has 1 0. C. A. 354. See post, % 350.
rested his case, Her evidence may * State v. Cummins, 76 Iowa, 133 ;
then be regarded as newly discov- 40 N. W. Rep. 134. Cf. Avery v.
erod. Rice v. Rice (N. J., 1893), 23 Mattice, 9 N. Y. S. 166.
Atl. Rep. 946. If a witness profess « Prentiss v. Bates, 88 Mich. 567 ;
ignorance of a transaction he can- O'Hogan v. Dillon, 76 N. Y. 170.
not be required to inform himself n people v. Oyer &T., 83 N. Y. 436;
thereon for the purpose of answer- Morrow v. Ostrander, 13 Hun, 219.
ing a question, nor does the court ' Abb. Brief on Facts, g 393.
err in refusing to direct him to do so. ^ shear v. Van Dyke, 10 Hun, 528 ;
People V. Ching, 78 Cal. 389. Green v. Cawthorn, 4 Dev. (N. C.)
2 Paschal v. State, 15 S. E. Rep. 409; Abb. Brief on Facts, § 397;
533; 89 Ga. 803; Shultz v. State, 5 Whart. Crim. Ev., § 360.
Tex. App. 390; Lowe v. Lowe, 40 'Aceno v. Petroni, 1 Stark. 100.
Iowa, 230.
476
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
[§ 336.
§ 336. Responsiveness of answers. — The questions which
are put to a witness should be neither vague nor ambiguous,'
and his replies thereto should be responsive, stating all the
facts called for, and no more, without any expression of his
opinion or his conjectures.^ If a witness simply adopts the
answer of another witness preceding him,' or if his answer is
irresponsive so that it wholly or partially fails to convey the
information which is required, it may be stricken out on mo-
tion,* so far as it is irresponsive;^ and a refusal by the court to
do so, if the objection is promptly made, would be reversible
error.^ The court may, without abusing its discretion, instruct
a witness to answer a question responsivelj' where he persists
in giving an evasive answer;' and whether an answer is re-
sponsive is for the court* to determine. An answer which is
not only not responsive, but abusive to the adverse party or
to, his counsel, to such an extent that it is calculated to create
prejudice in the minds of the jurors, should be stricken out on
motion of the party injured, even where it was given in reply
to an irrelevant question.'
iHill V. State (Tenn., 1892), 19
S. W. Eep. 674; Mann t. State, 23
Fla. 610 : Bassett v. Shares, 63 Conn.
39; 27 Atl. Rep. 431.
^ While a witness may state all
the circumstances wliich are neces-
sarily involved in the answer re-
quired, he should not be allowed to
go bej'ond this. So, where a wit-
ness was asked to state a conversa-
tion he had with a certain person,
and while doing so stated that a
third person who was present was
crying, his answer is to that extent
irresponsive. Pence v. Waugh (Ind.,
1893), 84 N. E. Rep. 860.
3 Eddy V. Lowry (Tex., 1894), 24
S. W. Rep. 1076.
* Baldwin v. Walker, 94 Ala. 314 ;
10 S. Rep. 891 ; Colclough v. Niland,
68 Wis. 309; Harnickell v. Copper
Mining Co., 5 N. Y. S. 112; Kennedy
V. Upshaw, 60 Tex. 442; Link v.
Sheldon, 18 N. Y. S. 815; 64 Hun,
632; Lazard v. Mer. & Min. Co.,
(Md., 1893), 26 Atl. Bep. 797; Bischof
V. N. Y. El. R. Co., 18 N. Y. S. 865;
Krey v. Schlusner, 62 Hun, 620;
Angell V. Loomis (Mich., 1893), 55
N. W. Rep. 1008.
5 Benjamin v. N. Y. El. R. Co., 63
Hun, 629; 17 N. Y. S. 608; Pence v.
Waugh (Ind., 1893), 34 N. E. Rep.
860.
s Chicago, etc. Co. v. Woodward, 47
Kan. 191. The answer thus stricken
out is wholly withdrawn from the
consideration of the jury, nor is it
the duty of the court, in its charge,
to caution them to disregard it.
State V. McGahey (N. D., 1893), 55
N. W. Rep. 753; Hillesum v. City
of New York, 4 N. Y. S. 506.
'State V. Farley (Iowa, 1893), 53
N. W. Rep. 1089. «
* Galveston, etc. Co. v. Wesch
(Tex., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 62; Van
Doren v. Jelliffe, 20 N. Y. S. 636.
9 Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v.
Smith (Tex., 1894), 24 S. W. Rep.
668. In this case the plaintiff suing
to recover for lost baggage replied
§ 837.]
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
477
§ 337. The witness may refresh his memory hy referring
to writings. — The general rule is that a witness will be per-
mitted to speak of those facts only which are within his per-
sonal knowledge and recollection.^ He is at liberty, however,
to refresh or aid his memory, if it is at fault, by consulting on
the witness stand a writing or memorandum made by himself
or some other person,"'' if, after examining it, he is able to tes-
tify from his own recollection thus renewed and revived.' The
writing thus used is not generally or necessarily evidence, and
no question of its relevancy or materiality should be consid-
ered; * nor need it be read to the jury,^ though it has been held
that the jury may examine it to determine whether the recol-
lection of the witness could be refreshed hj it.*
The oases in which a witness will be permitted to refresh
bis memory from writings may be classified under two heads:
First'. If a witness, though he retains no independent recollec-
tion of the facts transcribed in the writing, remembers having
made it himself or recollects having seen it before, and re-
to the defendant's counsel, "it is
enough to be robbed without being
insulted by a corporation that boasts
of its millions and then employs
men wanting in intellect and the in-
stincts of a gentleman to defend it."
1 1 Greenl. on Ev. , § 436 ; 1 Whart.
Ev., gg 516-36.
2 Flint V. Kennedy, 33 Fed. Rep.
820; Card v. Foot, 56 Conn. 869;
Culver V. Scott, etc. Co., 55 N. W.
Rep. 553.
3 Jenkins r. State (Fla., 1893), 13
8. Eep. 677; Morris v. Columbian
Iron Works & D. D. Co. (Md., 1893),
85 Atl. Rep. 417; Third Nat. Bank
V. Owen, 101 Mo. 558; Rohrig v.
Pearson, 13 Colo. 137 ; Stavinow v.
Home Ins. Co., 43 Mo. App. 513;
Byrnes v. Pac. Exp. Co. (Tex., 1891),
■ 15 8. W. Rep. 46; McCloskey v. Barr,
45 Fed. Rep. 151 ; Kingory v. United
States, 44 Fed. Eep. 669; Weston
V. Brown, 80 Neb. 609; 46 N. W.
Rep. 836; Com. v. Clancy, 154 Mass.
138; 87 N. E. Rep. 1001; Finch v.
Barclay, 87 Ga. 393; Laboree v.
Closterman, 35 Neb. 150; 49 N. W.
Rep. 103; Watrous v. Cunningham,
71 Cal. 30. " The writing is used to
aid the memory. If the witness has
an independent knowledge of the
facts, there is no propriety in his in-
specting any note or writing." State
V. Baldwin, 86 Kan. 15; Sackett v.
Spencer, 29 Barb. 180. Where a
witness is forgetful he may be in-
terrogated upon irrelevant but sug-
gestive facts to refresh his memory
of the main transaction but not to
impeach him. Prentiss v. Bates, 88
Mich. 567; People v. Sherman, 61
Hun, 633 ; 133 N. Y. 349. See § 335.
4McNeely v. Duff, 50 Kan; 488;
Baum v. Reay, 96 Cal. 462 ; 89 Pac.
Rep. 117; Flood v. Mitchell, 68 N. Y.
507; Pickard v. Bryant, 53 N. W.
Rep. 788; 93 Mich. 430.
5 Raynor v. Norton, 3 Mich. 210.
6. Com. V. Halley, 13 Allen, 587, by
Hoar, J.
478
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
[§ 337.
members that when he saw it he knew it to be a correct state-
ment of those facts, he may consult it.' ]S"iw it is clear upon
considerations elsewhere explained that under certain circum-
stances such writings, if identified by the witness as being con-
temporaneous and original entries, if regularly made in the
course of his employment, he having a full knowledge of the
facts, are admissible as independent evidence as a part of
th,e res gestm? But where the writings do not fulfill these re-
quirements, that is, where the writings, though, contemporane-
ous, were not made by the witness, or where they are subse-
quent copies of original writings made by the witness or by
another person, they are not admissible as evidence though
the witness may still consult them to refresh his memory, and
they should be produced in court that the opposite counsel
may inspect them (without being obliged to put them in evi-
dence) and have an opportunity to question the witness as to
every fact which they contain.'
the like, in respect to which no
memory could be sufficiently re-
tentive without depending on mem-
oranda, and even memoranda would
not bring the transaction to present
recollection. In such cases, if the
witness on looking at the writing is
able to testify that he knows the
transaction took place though he has
no present recollection of it, his tes-
timony is admissible."
2 See g§ 58-63. See, also, Cole v.
Jessup, 10 N. Y. 96; 9 Barb. 895;
Halsey v. Sinsebaugh, 15 N. Y. 485.
If the witness on consulting the
original memorandum does not find
that it refreshes his memory so that
he can speak of his own knowledge,
the writing may be offered in evi-
dence. Marcey v. Shults, 29 N. Y.
348, If a writing' is already in evi-
dence it is not error for the court to
refuse to allow a witness to use it to
refresh his memory. Burlington,
etc. Co. V. Wallace, 38 Neb. 179; 44
N. W. Rep. 325.
8 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 437; Russell
v. Rider, 6 C. & P. 416; Rex v.
' 1 Greenl. on Ev. , g 437 ; Labaree v.
Closterman, 33 Neb. 150; 49 N. W.
Rep. 1103 ; Baum v. Reay, 96 Cal. 463 ;
29 Pac. Rep. 117; Hartley v. Cata-
ract, etc. Co., 19 N. Y. S. 131 ; Green
V. Casilk, 16 Md. 556; Wagonseller
V. Brown, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 6C3;
State V. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1 ; Con-
verse V. Hobbs, 64 N. H. 43; Hayden
V. Hoxie, 37 111. App. 533; Ellis v.
State, 25 Fla. 703; 6 S. Rep. 768;
Flint V. Kennedy, 33 Fed. Rep. 830;
Riordan v. Guggerty, 74 Iowa, 688 ;
Butler V. Benson, 1 Barb. 536 ; Bur-
bank V. Dennis (Cal., 1893), 35 Pac.
Rep. 444 ; Downer v. Rowell, 24 Vt.
343; Costello v. Crowell, 133 Mass.
355; State v. Col well, 3 R. I. 133;
George v. Joy, 19 N. H. 544; Mor-
rison V. Chapin, 97 Mass. 76 ; Card v.
Foot, 56 Conn. 369; Brotton v.
Langert, 1 "Wash. 267. In Dugau v.
Mahoney, 11 Allen (Mass.), 573, the
court said: "It is obvious that this
species of evidence must be admis-
sible in regard to numbers, dates
and deliveries of goods, payments
and receipts of money, accounts and
§ 338.] ESAMINATION OF WITNESSES. ' 4T9
The other class of cases includes writings which the witness
does not remember having seen before and of whose contents
or correctness he has no present recollection, but, knowing
the writing to be genuine, he is able on consulting it, and
because of its aid and his confidence in its genuineness, to swear
independently and of his own knowledge to the facts. Thus a
subscribing witness seeing his own signature at the foot of an
attestation clause will be enabled to testify that a testator
executed a will though the witness has wholly forgotten some
or all of the circumstances of the execution.^
§ 338. Character of the writing used to refresh the mem-
ory of the witness. — The writing by which the witness re-
freshes his memory should be contemporaneous with the
transactions that are mentioned in it.^ This is the general
rule which is supported by a majority of the cases, though it
is sometimes qualified by the statement that the entry need
not be precisely contemporaneous if it was made before the
memory of the person making it had become weakened and
unreliable by lapse of time.' In many cases copies made
some time after the original entry or writing have been per-
mitted to be used if the witness could swear of his own knowl-
edge to their accuracy.* But a copy cannot be used by the
Ramsden, 2 id. 603; Baurn v. Reay, , Md. 54; Watrous v. Cunningham,
96 Cal. 463; 29 Pac. Rep. 117; 71 Cal. 30: Burbank v. Dennis (Cal.,
Wagonseller v. Brown, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 1893), 35 Pac. Rep. 444.
Rep. 663: Little v. Lischkoff (Ala., 3 Culver v. Scott (Minn., 1893), 55
1893), 13 S. Rep. 439 ; Adae v. Zangs, N. W. Rep. 553 ; Sisk v. State, 38
41 Iowa, 586 ; Huff v. Bennett, 6 Tex. App. 433 ; Jones v. Stroud, 2
N. Y. 337 ; Tibbetts v. Sternberg, 66 C. & P. 196 ; Howell v. Bowman
Barb. (N. Y.) 201; Peck v. Lake, 3 (Ala., 1893), 10 S. Rep. 640; Bank v.
Lans. 136; Dew V. Downam, 1 Green, BoUong, 2t Neb. 825. So it has been
135; Patterson v. Tucker, 4 Halst. permitted counsel to refresh the
332; Bonnet V. Gladfeldt, 24 III. App. memory of a forgetful witness by
533. Contra, Chattanooga, etc. Co. reading evidence given by him on a
V. Owen (Ga., 1893), 15 8. E. Rep. former trial from the stenographer's
853. minutes. Ehrisman v. Scott (Ind.,
1 See ante, § 138. 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 867; Batishill v.
2 Williams v. Wager, 64 Vt. 336; Humphreys, 64 Mich. 514; 38 N. W.
Weston V. Brown, 35 Neb. 609; 46 Rep. 581.
N. W. Rep. 836 ; Com. v. Clancy, * Lord Talbot v. Cnsack, 17 Ir. C.
154 Mass. 138; 37 N.. E. Rep. 1001; L. 213; Home v. MfKenzie, 6C. &F.
Converse v. Hobbs, 64 N. H. 42; 628; Birmingham v. McPoland (Ala.,
Spring Garden Ins. Co. v. Riley, 15 1893), 11 8. Rep. 437; Anderson v.
480
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
[§ 339.
witness until the absence of the original is accounted for.^ A
witness who has been called to testify to the value of mate-
rials may use a price list on the stand to aid him in forming
a correct opinion, where it is shown that it is impossible for
him to retain all the prices in his memory.^
§ 339. Cross-examination — Its object and value.— As a
means of ascertaining the truth, the cross-examination of a
witness in open court is correctly said to be at once effective
and impartial.' "Writers on the law of evidence have fre-
quently adverted to its peculiar efficacy and excellence as a
method of investigating the motives and personal prejudices
of the witness, and his relation to the parties and to the sub-
ject of the suit. So, also, his knowledge and general intelli-
gence, the faithfulness of his memory, his impartiality or bias,
his means of observation and his opportunities for gaining an
accurate and full acquaintance with the facts and circum-
stances, ma^'^ all be explored and ascertained for the consider-
ation of the jurors, to aid them in determining what weight
they should place upon his evidence.''
Imhof, 34 Neb. 335; Stavinow v.
Home Ins. Co., 43 Mo. App. 513;
Watson V. Miller, 83 Tex. 279; Wat-
rous V. Cunningham, 71 Cal. 30;
Bonnet v. Gladfeldt, Si 111. App.
533; Flint v. Kennedy, 33 B'ed. Rep.
820; People v. Monroe (Cal., 1893),
33 Pao. Rep. 776 ; Burbank v. Dennis
(Cal., 1893), 35 Pac. Rep. 444; Ston-
dennie v. Harper, 81 Ala. 243 ; Cald-
well V. Bowen, 80 Mich. 383.
1 Byrnes v. Pacific Exp. Co. (Tex.,
1891), 15 S. W. Rep. 46; Anderson v.
Imhoff, 34 Neb. 335; 51 N. W. Rep.
854; Birmingham v. McPoIand(Ala.,
1893), 11 S. Rep. 437. That a witness
may refresh his memory by reading a
printed article published from manu-
script supplied by him, see Hawes v.
State, 88 Ala, 37.
2 Morris v. Columbian Iron Works
& D. D. Co. (Md., 1893), 25 Atl. Rep.
417.
' ' ' Cross-examination, which is the
right of the party agaiust whom a
witness is called, is a means of sep-
arating hearsay from knowledge, —
error from truth ; opinion from fact;
influence from recollection; of as-
certaining the order of the events as
narrated by the witness in his ex-
amination in chief, the time and
place when and where they occurred
and the attending circumstances,
and of testing the intelligence, mem-
ory, impartialitj', truthfulness and
integrity of the witness." The Ot-
tawa, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 271.
*1 Greenl. on Ev., § 446; 1 Stark,
on Ev., §§ 160, 161. In Alison's Prac-
tice, p. 546, it is said: "Where a
witness is evidently prevaricating or
concealing the truth, it is seldom by
intimidation or sternness of manner
that he can be brought, at least in
this country, to let out the truth.
Such measures may sometimes ter-
rify a timid witness into a true con-
fession; but in general they only
confirm a hardened one in his false-
§ 339.] EXAMINATION 01? WITNESSES. 481
It is sometimes an important question whether a party has
so examined his own witness as to give his adversary the right
to cross-examine him. A witness who has been sworn, but to
whom no questions are put, cannot be cross-examined;' and
this is true a fortiori vihGve the only object of calling him
is to obtain the production of a writing wliich is to be proved
by another witness.^ But error in refusing a party the right
to cross-examine is absolutelj'- waived by the party making
the witness his own.' It has been held that the parties to an
action have a right to regard the witness of a third party in-
tervening as adverse where the original parties have some
interests in common against the intervener. Both parties
may therefore cross-examine the witnesses of the party inter-
vening.* The right and scope of a cross-examination as such
are confined strictly to those matters concerning which the
witness has already been interrogated on his direct examina-
tion. In other words, the counsel cross-examining will not be
permitted to ask the witness leading and general questions
upon matters which, though involved in the issue; were not
touched upon in his direct examination.'
hood and give him time to consider Reed v. James, 1 Stark. 133; Bush
how seeming contradictions may be v. Smith, 1 C. M. & R. 94; Davis v..
reconciled. The most effectual rem- Dale, 1 M. & M. 514; Summers v..
edy is to examine rapidly and mi- Mosely, 3 O. & M. 477. A witness-
nutely as to a number of subordinate called only to prove a signature may
and apparently trivial points in his be cross-examined. Yost v. Minn:,
evidence concerning which there is Hard. Works, 41 111. App. 556.
little likelihood of his being pre- 3 Hemminger v. Western Ass. Co..
pared with falsehood ready made; {Mich., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 949.
and where such a course of interro- Cf. Territory v. Rehberg, 6 Mont,
gation is skilfully laid, it is rarely 467; 13 Pac. Rep. 133.
that it fails in exposing perjury or < Succession of Townsend, 40 La;
contradictions in some parts of the Ann. 66 ; 3 S. Rep. 488.
testimony which it is desired to over- » Eames v. Keiser, 143 U. S. 488;
turn." St. Louis & Iron M. R. R. Co. v.
1 Austin v. State, 14 Ark. 555. Silver, 56 Mo. 265; Bell v. Prewitt,
One of several jointly tried for a 63 111. 363; Britton v. State, 115 lud.
crime may be required to cross-ex- 55 ; Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich,
amine the state's witnesses and pro- 319; Adams v. State, 28 Fla. 511;
duce his own before the same is Bullis v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 76
done by his co-defendants. State v. Iowa, 680; Cramer v. CuUinane, »'
Howard (S. C, 1893), 14 S. E. Rep. MacArthur (D. C), 197; Freeman v.
481. Hensley (Cal., 1893), 30 Pac. Rep.
2 Perry v. Gibson, 1 Ad. & El. 48 ; 793 ; Jones v. Roberts, 37 Mo. App,
31 I
482 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§ 340.
If a witness while being cross-examined avoids replying or
parries the questions, he may be pressed for an answer, and
the counsel calling him should not be allowed to interpose
frivolous objections to prevent a rapid cross-examination and
to afford the witness an opportunity to fabricate evidence.'
But the extent to which the same question may be repeated
is largelj' in the discretion of the court.^
§ 340. Power of cross-examination — Its extent. — Though
the court may exercise its discretion in allowing or refusing
cross-examination as to irrelevant matters bearing on credibil-
ity alone, the right to cross-examine upon transactions directly
relevant and which have been brought out on the direct exam-
ination is absolute. So the fact that relevant evidence, elicited
by a proper question put on the direct examination, has. been
improperly stricken out, furnishes no basis for a claim that
other strictly relevant evidence of the same matter should be
expunged when stated on cross-examination.' But the right
to cross-examine a witness is not lost because the party fails to
object to a direct examination out of the proper order.^ The
proper remedy for a party who has had no opportunity of
cross-examining an adverse witness is to move the court to
strike out his evidenpe elicited on the direct examination and
to request an instruction that the jury should disregard it.'
The extent to which a party may cross-examine his adversary's
177; Lloyd V. Thompson, 5 111. App. 142 U. S. 691 ; Rigdon v. Conley, 31
90; Pye v. Bakke (Minn., 1893), 55 III. App. 630; Welcome v. Mitchell,
N. W. Rep. 904; Buckley v. Buck- 81 "Wis. 566; 51 N. W. Rep. 1080;
ley, 13 Nev. 428 ; In re Westerfield, State v. Willingham, 38 La. Ann.
96 Cal. 113; Braly v. Henry, 77 Cal. 537.
334; Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass. i State v. Duncan (Mo., 1893), 22
V. Hutmacher, 137 111. 656; State v. S. W. Rep. 699.
Chamberlain, 89 Mo. 132 ; Hunsinger 2 Brown v. State, 72 Md. 477; 20
V. Hofner, 110 Ind. 390; State v. Atl. Rep. 140; McGuire v. Manu-
Farrington (Iowa, 1894), 57 N. W. facturing Co., 156 Mass. 334; Sand-
Rep. 606; Bohan-v. Avoca, 154 Pa. ers v. Bagwell (S. C, 1893), 15 S. E.
St. 104 ; Townsend V. Briggs (Cal., Rep. 714; Lakens v. Hazlett, 37
1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 807; Chandler v. Minn. 441.
Beal, 132 Ind. 596; Hansen v. Mil- ' TurnbuU v. Richardson, 60 Mich,
ler (HI., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 548; 400; 37 N. W. Rep. 499.
Amos V. State (Ala., 1893), 11 S. Rep. ^ Graham v. Larimer, 83 Cal. 173 ;
434; Galev. People, 36 Mich. 157; 83 Pac. Rep. 386.
Mt. Vernon v. Brooks, 89 111. App. » People v. Cole, 43 N. Y. 508.
426; Home Ben. Ass, v. Sargent,
§ 340.]
EXAMINATION OF 'WITNESSES.
483
witnesses upon matters not directly relevant to the issue, but
which affect the credibility of the witness, is largely within
the discretion of the judge,' and a reasonable exercise of this
discretion will be always allowed in limiting the method or
duration of the cross-examination or in admitting irrelevant
questions tending to explain the motives,^ opportunities ' and
powers of observation, the knowledge,^ memory,' reliability * or
good faith of the witness.'
Questions put to the witness designed to ascertain his rela-
tions, business or otherwise, towards the parties and his feel-
ings or bias towards them are not objectionable.* On the
other hand, it is not reversible error for the court to refuse to
permit the cross-examination to be unreasonably prolonged,'
> 1 Greenl. Ev., § 447 ; Wallace v.
Railroad Co., 119 Mass. 91 -.^Phillips
V. Marblehead, 148 Mass. 329 ; Hunts-
ville Belt Line & M. S. Ry. Co. v.
Corpening (Ala., 1893), 12 S. Rep.
295 ; Birmingham F. I. Co, v. Pulver,
18 N. E. Rep. 804; 126 111. 329; Col-
lar V. Potter, 88 Mich. 549 ; Graham
V. McReynolds, 90 Tenn. 673; Hold-
ridge V. Lee, 52 N. W. Rep. 26o;
State V. Norris, 109 N. C. 820; Rior-
dan V. Guggerty, 74 Iowa, 688 ; 39
N. W. Rep. 107; State v. Miller, 93
Mo. 263 ; Gutsch v. Mcllhargey, 69
Mich. 377; Gadbois v. Chicago, M. &
St. P. R. R. Co., 75 Iowa, 530;
Schmidt v. McCarthy, 43 Minn.
288.
2 People T. Thomas, 92 Cal. 506;
Hartman v, Rogers, 69 Cal. 643.
estate V. Avery (Mo., 1893), 21 S.
W. Rep. 193 ; International R. R. Co.
V. Dyer, 76 Tex. 156; Holmes v.
State, 88 Ala. 226.
^Hess V. Lowry, 122 Ind. 225;
"Williams v. State (Fla., 1893), 13 S.
Rep. 834; Chicago, K. & N. R. Co.
V. Stewart, 47 Kan. 704; Lentz y.
Carnegie Bros. Co., 145 Pa. St. 612;
Schwartz v. Wood, 67 Hun, 648 ; Col-
lar V. Potter, 88 Mich. 549. A wit-
ness may be asked on cross-examina-
tion if he understood a question
asked him on the direct examina-
tion. Pence v. Waugh (Ind., 1893),
34 N. E. Rep. 860.
5 State V. Duffy, 57 Conn. 525;
Sewall V. Robbing, 139 Mass. 164;
Davis V. California Pow. Works, 84
Cal. 617. A witness may be asked
to repeat on cross-examination his
evidence to a particular point on his
direct examination to test his mem-
ory and ascertain if he will contra-
dict himself. Zucker v. Carpeles, 88
Mich. 413; Beers v. Payment (Mich.,
1898), 54 N. W. Rep. 886.
6 Hare v. Mahoney, 60 Hun, 576.
'Doyle V. Beaupre, 63 Hun, 624;
Pence v. Waugh, supra; Murray v.
G. W. Ins. Co., 25 N. Y. S. 414; Cur-
ren v. Ampersee (Mich., 1893), 56 N.
W. Rep. 87.
8 Graham v. McReynolds, 88 Tenn.
240; Pennsylvania Co. v. Newmeyer,
129 Ind. 401 ; Com. v. Lyden, 113
Mass. 452; Knight v. Cunnington,
13 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 100; Thomas v.
Loose, 114 Pa. St. 47; People v.
Thomson, 92 Cal. 596; Jackson v.
Litch, 62 Pa. St. 451; Schwartz
V. Wood, 67 Hun, 648; United States
V. Cross, 20 D. C. 365; Hamilton v.
Hulett (Minn., 1893), 53 N. W. Rep.
364; Holmes v. State, 88 Ala. 26.
0 Hamilton v. Hulett (Minn., 1898),
484 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§ 340.
or for the court to refuse to allow the same question to be '
asked repeatedly when it has been once answered satisfactor-
il}',* or to exclude questions which are designed solely to ascer-
tain what witnesses it may be advantageous for the party to
cross-examine.^ While counsel may of right cross examine the
witness as to relevant facts gone into on the direct examina-
tion, he should not be permitted to open his own case and
present his evidence to the jury by a process of cross-examin-
ing the adverse witnesses.?
The general rule that excludes evidence of facts collateral
to the issue ^ is not applied so rigidlj'^to the cross-examination
as it is to the direct examination. The theory upon which
cross-examination is allowed is that it is primarily adapted to
ascertain the truth, not by eliciting positive evidence directly
hearing oti the facts in issue, but by furnishing a means of test-
ing the truthfulness and credibility of the witness.' It is
never permissible on cross-examination to interrogate upon
wholly irrelevant and collateral matters solely for the purpose
of discrediting the witness by subsequently contradicting him
directly on that point by other evidence.' But it is proper to
53 N. W. Eep. 364 ; Pennsylvania Co. Rowell, 17 Pick. 499 ; Mount Vernon
V. Newmeyer, 129 Ind. DOl ; Birm- v. Brooks, 39 111. App. 426.
ingham F. Ins. Co. v. Culver, 126 * See avte, § 210.
111. 329; 18 N. E. Rep. 804. ^So where the witness testifying
1 Remer v. Long Island R. Co., 1 to a date states that on the date in
N. y. S. 124; Gutsch V. Mcllhargey, question he looked into the almanac,
69 Mich. 377 ; 37 N. W. Rep. 303 ; he may be asked on cross-examina-
Mason v. Hinds, 19 N. Y. S. 996; tlon why he did so, though strictly
Jones V.Stevens (Neb., 1893), 55 N. speaking his reason is irrelevant.
W. Rep. 251; Hughes v. Ward, 38 Thamas v. Miller, 151 Pa. St. 482.
Kan. 452. 61 Greenl. Ev., § 449; Putch v.
2 United States v. Cross, 20 D. C. State (Ga., 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 102;
365. An inquiry of a witness on Hoover v. Caiy (Iowa, 1893), 53 N.W.
cross-examination if he was a total Rep. 415 ; Pye v. Bakke (Minn., 1893),
abstainer, he having stated that the 55 N. W. Rep. 904 ; State v. Elwood,
plaintiff had been discharged by his 17 R. I. 763; Elkhart v. "Witman, 122
employer for drunkenness, is im- Ind. 538; Morris v. Atl. Ave. R. R.
proper. Fox v. Railroad Co., 52 N. Co., 116 N. Y. 552; People v. Mc-
W. Rep. 623; 92 Mich. 243. Kellar, 53 Cal. 65; Combs v. Wln-
3 Adams V. State, 28 Fla. 511; 10 Chester, 39 N. H. 1; Sutor v. Wood,
S. W. Rep. 106; Sullivan v. O'Leary, 76 Tex. 403; People v. Hilhouse, 80
146 Mass. 322; Burke v. Miller, 7 Mich. 580; Com. v. Hourigan (Ky.,
Cush. (Mass.) 547-550; Moody v. 1890), 12 S. W. Rep. 550; State v.
§ 340.]
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
48.^
ask the witness whether he did not at some particular time or
place give a different account of the relevant facts to that which
he gave on his direct examination. If he denies that he has
done so, a foundation is laid for impeaching him by the testi-
mony of some one who heard him make the contradictory
statement.^ So, too, where the witness on cross-examination
is questioned as regards his interest or prejudice, or, in other
words, where the purpose of the questions is solely to eluci-
date his existing or previous relation or conduct towards the
subject-matter or towards the parties, he may be contradicted
by other evidence.^ Thus, a witness may be asked on his
cross-exahiination if he has not expressed feelings of hostility,
or acted unfriendly towards the adverse party or towards the
prisoner,' and if he refuses to answer,* or answers in the neg-
ative,-the fact may be shown by the evidence of those who
heard him.' But if the witness state that although formerly
Rieck, 43 Kan. 635 ; State v. Blakely,
43 id. 250 ; Davis v. California Pow.
Works, 84 Cal. 617; People v. Tiley,
84 Cal. 651 ; Itobbins v. Spencer, 121
Ind. 594. But It seems that ques-
tions which would be irrelevant on
the direct examination may be al-
lowed on the cross-examination if
they tend to explain the transaction
in issue by bringing out particulars
which were not touched upon by the
party calling the witness (Doyle v.
Beaupre, 63 Hun, 624; Collar v. Pot-
ter, 88 Mich. 549 ; Pickard v. Bryant,
93 Mich. 430; 52 N. W. Rep. 788;
Osbiston v. Kaufman, 39 P'ac. Rep.
748), because adverse to his case.
iSeein/™, § 350; People v. Will-
iams, 18 Cal. 187; State v. Baldwin,
36 Kan. 1 ; State v. Tabott, 73 Mo.
347. And where a witness makes a
certain statement on cross-examina-
tion, he may then be asked if he did
not give different testimony on a
former trial. Hall v. Chicago R. Co.,
52 N. W. Rep. 347.
2Holdridge v. Lee (S. D., 1893), 53
N. W. Rep. 265.
' The prosecution may show the re-
lationship between the witness and
the prisoner, though this relationship
may prejudice the latter in the eyes
ofthejury. Statev. McGahey(N. D.,
1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 753; Burger v.
State. 83 Ala. 3«.
< State V. McFarlain, 41 La. Ann.
686.
SLyle V. State, 21 Tex. App. 153;
Atwood V. Welton, 7 Conn. 63 ; John
Morris Co. v. Burgess, 44 III. App. 27 ;
People v. Gillis (Cal., 1893), 32 Pac.
Rep. 586; Garnsey v. Rhodes, 138
N. Y. 461 ; Bonnard v. State, 25 Tex.
App. 173 ; Scott v. State, 64 Ind. 400 ;
Crumpton v. State, 52 Ark. 273;
Hamilton v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 9
N. Y. 313; People v. Thomas, 92 Cal.
506 ; People v. Goldensen, 76 Cal. 338 ;
Com. V. Byron, 14 Gray, 31. The ex-
tent of the right to cross-examine on
immaterial matters to ascertain bias
is discretionary with the court.
Miller v. Smith, 112 Mass. 470. The
hostility Oif an adverse witness may
be shown by the evidence of another
witness without questioning the hos-
486 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§ 341.
hostile to a party he is so no longer, testimony showing his
previous hostility is irrelevant as being too remote.'
§ 341. Redirect examination. — A witness may be re-
examined by the party calling him when, on cross-examina-
tion, he has been questioned in regard to a prior contradictory
statement,^ or he may be requested to state his motives for
acts done by him and described in his cross-examination.'
He may be questioned on re-examination with a view of as-
certaining the real meaning of his statements made on his
cross-examination and those made out of court in order to
show that, thought seemingly inconsistent, yet when rightly
understood they are not contradictory.* But counsel will not
be permitted to go be3'ond this and bring in new matter con-
sisting of statements neither explanatory of the contradict-
ory utterances nor connected with them, although contained
in the same conversation and relevant to the subject-matter
of the suit.' In re-examining a witness he may also be asked
questions which will explain all facts which were brought out
on his cross-examination ' from which wrong inferences might
be drawn or which tend to cast doubts upon his credit.''
tile witness. People v. Brooks, 131 ^ Miller v. Railroad Co. (Iowa,
N. Y. 321; 30 N. E. Eep. 189. But 1893), 57 N. W. Rep. 418; Prince v.
evidence that a party had brought Samo, 7 Ad. & El. 637. But see
an action against an adverse witness conti'a, Springfield v. Dalboy, 139
is inadmissible in the absence of evi- 111, 34; 29 N. E. Rep. 860.
dence showing the actual existence 6 "The examination and cross-
of a hostile feeling as the result of examination must relate to facts in
the suit. Wischstadt v. Wischstadt, issue, or relevant, or denied to be
47 Minn. 38; 50 N. W. Rep. 225. relevant thereto; but the cross-
1 Consaul v. Sheldon, 33 Neb. 247. examination need not be confined
2 Butterfield v. Gilchrist, 63 Mich, to the facts to which the witness
155. testified on his examination in chief.
5 Westbrook v. Aultman, 3 Ind. There-examination must be directed
App. 83; 28 N. E. Rep. 1011; Com. to the explanation of matters re-
V. Dill, 156 Mass. 266; 30 N. E. Rep. ferred to in cross-examination; and
1016; People v. Hanifan (Mich., if new matter is by permission of
1893), 56 N. W. Rep. 1048 ; Railroad the court introduced in re-examina-
y. Randall, 85 Ga. 297. tion, the adverse parly may further
' Wilkersons v. Eilers (Mo., 1898), cross-examine upon the matter."
21 S. W. Rep. 134; Dole v. Wool- Stephen's Dig..j;v., art. 127.
dridge, 142 Mass. 184; Smith v. 'State v. McGahey .(N. D., 1893),
State, 21 Tex. App. 277; State v. 55 N. W. Rep. 753; Vanduzer v.
Reed, 89 Mo. 168; Fuller v. James- Letellier, 78 Mich. 493; United
town, etc. Co., 36 N. Y. S. 1078. States v. Barrells, 8 Blatchf. 475;
§ 342.] EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 4:87
A suggestive mode of interrogating a witness on the re-
direct examination, though sometimes permissible ^ and always
in the discretion of the court, is not to be commended. Thus,
counsel should not be allowed to extricate the witness from
his difficulty by repeating to him his statement made on the
direct examination, and then asking him if the statements
made on cross-examination are consistent therewith.^ Where
the court in the exercise of its discretion permits a witness to
answer irrelevant questions or to make irrelevant replies to
relevant questions on the cross-examination, the part}' may on
the redirect examination question him upon the same matters.'
If the adverse party desires to re-examine the witness after
the redirect examination he may do so on the recross exam-
ination, but he will be restricted to new matter brought out
on the redirect examination.
§ 342. Recalling witnesses. — Whether a witness, after
having given his testimony and left the stand, shall be per-
mitted to be recalled by the party in whose behalf he has tes-
tified, or for further cross-examination by the adverse party,*
is a matter wholly in the discretion of the court;* and this
Norwegian Plow Co. v. Hanthorn, cross-examining brings out a partial
71 Wis. 529 ; 37 N. W. Rep. 835 ; disclosure of a transaction which is
'PuUen V. Pullen (N. J., 1888), 13 not admissible if coming from his
Atl. Rep. 138 ; Feather v. Reading, opponent, the latter may on his re-
155 Pa. St. 187; Alderton v. Wright, direct examination make a full die-
Si Mich. 344. Accordingly where a covery. Howe t. Schwemberg, 4
witness acknowledged that a written Misc. Rep. 73 ; Simmons v. Havens,
statement had been prepared by the 101 N. Y. 427.
public prosecuting officer at whose '■> People v. McNamara, 94 Cal. 509 ;
bidding she signed, she will be al- Furbush v. Goodwin, 5 Fost. (N. H.)
lowed, on the redirect examination, 425 ; Uhe v. Chicago M. etc. Co.
to state that the statement was (S. D., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 601.;
wholly voluntary, that it was true. State v. Cardoza, 11 S. C. 195;
and that its language was her own. Schaser v. State, 86 Wis. 439; Good-
People v. Mills, 54 N. W. Rep. 488; man v. Kennedj-, 10 Neb. 370;
94 Mich. 630. Blewett v. Tregonning, 3 Ad. & El.
1 Smith V. State, 31 Tex. App. 377. 554, 565, 581, 584. cited in 1 Greenl.
^ Smith V. State, 21 Tex. App. 277: Ef., § 468. Contra, Lake Erie, etc.
Stoner v. Devilbiss, 70 Md. 160; Co. v. Morain, 36 111. App. 632; 29
Ohlsen v. Terrero, L. R. 10 Ch. App. N. E. Rep. 869.
127; Wells v. Jackson I. Mfg. Co., * People v. Parton, 49 Cal. 632.
48 N. H. 491; Moody v. Rowell, 17 5 Louisville, etc. Co. v. Barker
Pick. 498; Gunter v. Watson, 4 (Ala., 1893), 10 S. Rep. 453; Gulf, C.
Jones' (N. C.) L. 455. If a party in & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pool, 70 Tex. 713;
488 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§ 343.
discretion, it has been held, was not abused where a witness
was recalled after a direct, cross, redirect and recross-exami-
nation.^
So if the witness was unable to answer positively or defi-
nitely when on the stand, it is proper to refuse to permit him
to be recalled later for an additional examination,^ or to permit
a witness who has already testified fully and satisfactorily to
a certain transaction to be recalled -for the sole purpose of
having him repeat his testimony or to obtain cumulative tes-
timony on the same point.' But the fact that a witness on
being recalled merely reiterated his previous testimony does
not constitute error provided no practical injustice has re-
sulted thereby.* If a witness is recalled for further direct
examination or for further cross-examination, the adverse
party has the right of further cross-examination or of further
redirect examination respectively .*
§ 343. Receiving evidence out of conrt. — It is highly im-
proper for the jury to seek or to receive evidence out of court,
and such an act, where their verdict is influenced thereby,
will furnish ground for its reversal. Thus, the jurors will
not be allowed to experiment,' to take a private view of
the premises,'' or to communicate with other persons,^ particu-
Fowler v. Strawberry Hill, 74 Iowa, 38 S. C. 39 ; 4 S. E. Rep. 799 ; Ricli-
644 ; 38 N. W. Rep. 531 ; Riley v. mond & D. R. Co. v. Vance, 93 Ala.
State, 88 Ala. 193; Nixon v. Beard, 144; Brown v. State, 73 Md. 468.
Ill Ind. 137; State v. Dilley, 15 ^Bonnet v. Gladfeldt, 24 III. App.
Oreg. 70; Humphreys v. State, 78 533; 130 111. 166; 11 N. E. Rep. 350.
Wis. 569 ; 47 N. W. Rep. 836 ; Snod- 3 Chicago, etc. Co. v. Hazels (Neb.,
grass V. Com. (Va., 1893), 17 S. E. 1889), 43 N. W. Rep. 93.
Rep. 838 ; State v. Huflf, 76 Iowa, * Dillard v. State, 58 Miss. 368.
3pP; Graves v. Santway, 6 N. Y. S. 5 Stephen's Dig., art. 126.
893; Huff v. Latimer (S. C, 1890), sjim v. State, 4 Humph. (Tenn.)
11 S. E. Rep. 75§; Francis v. Roosa, 289; Yates v. People, 38 111. 537;
151 Mass. 533. In State v. Clyburn, Forehand v. State, 51 Ark. 553 ;
16 S. C. 375, it was held a proper ex- Indianapolis v. Scott, 72 Ind. 196;
ercise of the judicial discretion to State v. Sanders, 68 Mo. 202.
permit a witness to be recalled by ■'Harrington v. Worcester, etc.
the state to testify to a single fact, Co. (Mass., 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 955:
though the examination of the de- Woodbury v, Anoka (Minn., 1893),
fendant's witnesses was interrupted 54 N. W. Rep. 187 ; Garside v. Watch
and suspended thereby. Case Co., 17 R. I. 691.
1 HoUingsworth v. State, 4 S. E. 8 Wynn v. Railroad Co.(Ga., 1S93),
Rep. 560; 79 Ga. 605; State v. Jacobs, 17 S. E, Rep. 649; Hager v. Hager,,
343.]
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
489
larly witnesses.^ Neither party has any legal right to submit
dooumentary or other evidence to the jury except during the
pendency of the trial and in the presence of the court. Upon
this principle the reception of evidence outside of court will
vitiate the verdict. So writings not a part of the evidence,^ as,
for example, maps,' and legal or scientific books and publica-
tions,^ are not permitted to be perused by the jury. But thej^
inay of course consult the pleadings,^ memoranda or notes of
the judge's instructions,* and all papers which constitute a part
of the evidence.' Bat writings forming no part of the evidence
38 Barb. 93; People v. Boggs, 30
Cal. 433; State v. Dorsey, 40 La.
Ann. 739; Epps v. State, 19 Ga. 103;
State V. Fruge, 38 La. Ann. 657;
Dower V. Church, 31 W. Va. 34, 55;
March v. State, 44 Tex. 64; Peter-
sen V. Siglinger (S. D., 1893), 53 N.
W. Eep. lOCO; Collier v. State, 30
Ark. 36.
1 See cases in last note. If a juror
has personal knowledge of the facts
in issue or of the character of a party
or a witness, he should be called to
give his evidence as a witness in
open court. Where the verdict is
based upon or influenced by state-
ments of matters known to a juror
alone, made by him in the jury-
room, which would be evidence if
he were on the witness stand, a new
trial should be granted. People v.
Thornton, 74 Cal. 48; Winslow v.
Morrill, 68 Me. 363; McKiesick v.
State, 26 Tex. 673 ; Anshicks v. State,
6 Tex. App. 537 ; Salina v. Tuspar,
27 Kan. 544; Wade v. Ordway, 57
Tenn. 229 ; Taylor v. State, 53 Miss.
84; Wood River Bank v. Dodge
(Neb., 1893), 55 N. W. Eep. 334;
Lucas v. State, 27 Tex. App. 333.
2 State V. Hartman, 46 Wis. 478;
Cavanaugh v. Buehler, 130 Pa. St.
441; Munde v. Lambre, 125 Mass.
367; State v. Lantz, 33 Kan. 738;
Cfaase V. Perley, 148 Mass. 389; Mc-
Leod V. Railway Co., 71 Iowa, 138;
Toohy V. Lewis, 78 Ind. 474 ; Meyer
V. Cadwalader, 40 Fed. Rep. 33.
3 Moore v. McDonald, 68 Md. 321 ;
State V. Hartman, 46 Wis. 248;
State V. Lantz, 23 Kan. 728.
< Johnson -v. State, 37 Pla. 345;
Chamberlain v. Pybus, 81 Tex. 511 ;
Merrill v. Mary, 10 Allen (Mass.),
416; State v. Wilson, 40 La.' Ann.
757; State v. Smith, 6 R. I. 33;
Sfate V. Tanner, 38 La. Ann. 307;
Bernhart v. State, 82 Wis. 23; Har-
ris V. State, 24 Neb. 803; State v.
Hopper, 71 Mo. 425 ; State v.'Gilleok,
10 Iowa, 98; Moon v. State, 68 Ga.
687; State v. Harris, 34 La. Ann.
118.
SHitchins v. Frostburg, 68 Md.
100; Smith y. Holcomb, 99 Mass.
553!
6 Cowles V. Hayes, 71 N. C. 231 ;
State V. Thompson, 83 Mo. 357; Po-'
sey V. Patton, 109 N. C. 455; Henly
V. State, 29 Ark. 17.
7 Hudspeth v. Mears (Ga., 1893),
17 S. E. Eep. 837; People v. For-
mosa, 61 Hun, 372; Territory v.
Jones, 6 Dak. 85 ; State v. Raymond,
53 N. J. L. 538; Baker v. Com. (Ky.,
1892), 17 S. W. Rep. 635 (deposition) ;
State V. Thompkins, 71 Mo. 63 ; Peo-
ple V. Cochran, 61 Cal. 548; Paige v.
Chedsey, 33 N. Y. S. 879; Beeks v.
Odom, 70 Tex. 183; Hewitt v. Rail-
road, 67 Mich. 6t ; Shoms v. Ziegler,
10 Phila. (Pa.) 315; Davis v. State
490 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. ' [§ 344.
should not be allowed in the jury-room' unless both parties
consent. On general principles of justice, the impropriety of
permitting the jurors to take with them from the court arti-
cles which have been used to explain the evidence and from
which they may draw, in the absence of the court and the
accused, erroneous inferences of fact, will be readily admitted.
So to permit the jury to take with them into the jury-room a
weapon with which it is alleged a crime was committed is re-
versible error, as such a course of action is likely to result in
serious injustice to the accused.* If the accused consents to
it, however, it seems that even articles not in evidence may be
taken by the jury to aid them in their deliberations.'
§ 344. Taking the view by the jury. — In some of the
states it is permitted by statute for the court to order the jury
to be taken in a body and in charge of a sworn officer to the
place where the subject under litigation is located or where a
fact material to the issue occurred. But a view cannot be or-
dered in the absence of statute * without the consent of the
parties to the cause.
> ' The exercise of the statutory authority to grant a view of
the premises lies wholly in the discretion of the court,' and to
(Ga., 1893), 17 S. E. Rep, 292; Cargill jury aa evidence, either in the court-
V. Com. (Ky., 1893), 30 S. W. Eep. room or elsewhere. It is proper
783 ; ShoUy v. Dillar, 3 Rawle (Pa.), to instruct the jury that the indict-
147 ; Posey v. Patton, 109 N. C. 455 ; ment has no evidentiial value and to
Wood V. Wood, 47 Kan. 617 ; Nott v. point out to them Its true use and
Thomson, 35 S. C. 461 ; 14 S. E. Rep. signification. State v. Hart, 66 Mo.
940; Chamberlain v. Pybus, 81 Tex. 208.
511; Falvey v. Richmond, 87 Ga. 99; 2 Forehand v. State, 51 Ark. 553;
Avery v. Moore, 133 111. 74; Mooney 11 S. W. Rep. 766.
v. Hough, 84 Ala. 80 ; Cockrill v. 3 People v. Mahoney, 77 Cal. 539.
Hall, 76 Cal. 193. 4 Com. v. Webster, 5 Gush. (Mass.)
1 State y. Baker (Greg., 1893), 83 395,298; Smith v. State, 43 Tex. 444 ;•
Pac. Rep. 161 ; Himes v. Krehl, 154 State v. Bertin, 34 La. Ann. 46 ;
Pa. St. 190; Spalding v. Saltill Bostock v. State, 61 Ga. 635, 639;
(Colo., 1893), 31 Pac. Eep. 486 (plead- Doud v. Guthrie, 13 Bradw. (Ill,)
ings excluded); Hefrom v. Gallup, 653.
55 Me. 563; Oskaloosa College v. 'Jenkins v. Railroad Co., HON. C.
Western U. T. Co. (Iowa, 1893), 54 438; Springer v. Chicago, 87 III. App.
N, W. Rep. 153, and cases in last 206; 135 111. 533 ; Stewart v. Railroad
note. The indictment in a criminal Co., 86 Mich. 315; Springfield v. Dal-
trial is not evidence, nor should it be bey, 139 111. 34; 39 N. E. Rep. 860;
read to or by the members of the Kan. Cent, R. R. v, Allen, 33 Kan.
§ 34:4.] EXAMINATION Olf WITNESSES. 491
obtain a new trial for a refusal to grant a view'it must be
clearly shown that the view was necessary, practicable, and
that by the request being denied the party was injured.'
Where a jury trial is had in equity it has been held that the
judge should accompany the jury in taking the view.^ And
in some cases the power may be exercised sua sponte, while in
others the view can only be ordered if requested by a party.
The subject depends wholly upon the terms of the statutes,
which should be consulted.
Whether the object of the view is to supply the jury Avith
evidence or to enable them to comprehend more clearly the
evidence given in court has been differently decided. The
latter proposition is supported by the weight of the decisions
and seems most consistent with the well-recognized rules of
evidence and procedure.' The opposite opinion is not without
support.^ So the question of the right of the accused to be
present when the view is ordered in a criminal trial is still
unsettled. If the knowledge thus acquired by the jury be re-
garded as evidence, his presence is indispensable, as he has
a constitutional right to confront the witnesses in the pres-
ence of the court and to hear the evidence against him,' while
285; Chicago, etc. Co. V. Leah, 41 111. * Morrison v. Railroad (la., 1892),
App. 584, 592 ; Guna v. Ohio, etc. 57 N. W. Eep. 75 ; Heady v. Vevay
Co., 37 W. Va. 431 ; Klepsch v. Don- Turnpike Co., 53 Ind. 117; Parks v.
aid, 4 Wash. St. 436; Board v. Cas- Boston, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 209; Colum-
tetter (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 986; bus v. Billingmeier, 7 Ohio Cir. Ct.
King V. Iowa Midland R. Co., 34 Rep. 136. "The purpose is to en-
Iowa, 458; Chute v. State, 19 Minn, able the jury the better to under-
271; Owen v. Miss. Pac. R.,Co., 38 stand the testimony and thereby the
Fed. Rep. 571 ; Smith v. Railroad Co., more intelligently to apply it to the
33 Minn. 1; Leonard v. Armstrong, issues; not to make them silent wit-
75 Mich. 577 ; Snow v. Railroad, 6 nesses, burdened with testimony un-
Me. 230; Boardmnn v. Westchester known to the parties and with no
Fire In?. Co., 54 Wis. 864 ; Baltimore, opportunity for cross-examination or
etc. R. Co. V. Polly, 14 Gratt. (Va.) correction of error if any is made."
447, 470; People v. Bonny, 19 Cal. Anderson's Law Diet. See Close v.
436. Samm, 27 Iowa, 507.
1 Hudson V. Eoos, 76 Mich. 173; < Washburn v. Railway Co., 59
Guunv. Railroad Co., 36 W.Va. 165; Wis. 364, 368; Parks v. Boston, 15
Stewart v. Cincinnati, etc. Co., 89 Pick. (Mass.) 198; Toledo, etc. R. Co.
Mich. 315. V. Dunlap, 47 Mich. 456; Springfield
• 2Fraedrich v. Flieth, 64 Wis. 184; v. Dalbey, 139 III. 34.
Jeffersonville, etc. R. Co. V. Bowen, 'Benton v. Slate, 30 Ark. .338;
40 Ind. 545. People v. Bush (Cal.), 10 Pac. Rep^
492 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§ 345.
if this vievy be repudiated his presence, while allowable, is
never indispensable.^
In proceedings to condemn land under the exercise of the
right of eminent domain, where a jury trial is allowed, the
members of the jury act as guasi-assessovs in fixing the value
of the land taken, and under such circumstances the infor-
mation obtained may justly be deemed evidence.^ The view
may be had after the summing up,' but no oral evidence
should then be admitted during its progress, the duty of the
showers being only to point out the place itself.*
§345. "Real evidence" — Physical examination by the
jury in court — Identification.^ — By " real evidence " is meant
that evidence w^ich is obtained through the eyes by the in-
spection of a person or thing by the judge or jury in open
court.'' The question of the production of articles in court to
illustrate the evidence having been considered elsewhere,' it
will be necessary in this place to consider those cases only in
which some question of personal identity or resemblance is
involved, and in which the person himself may be required to
submit to the examination of the jury.
Where the legitimacy of a child is in issue the court has
often permitted it to be exhibited to the jury in court in order
that they, from a personal inspection, and comparison with its
putative parent, may be enabled to ascertain whether or not
it resembles the latfer.' But where the child was very young,
169; Carroll v. State, 5 Neb. 1; Fos- 2Remy v. Mun. No. 3, 13 La. Ann.
ter V. State (Miss., 1893), 12 S. Rep. 500, 503; Mich. etc. R. Co. v. Barnes,
833. " A person accused of a crime 44 Mich. 323; Pai-ks v. Boston, 13
is deprived of his right of appearing Pick. (Mass.) 209; Toledo, etc. R. Co.
in person and of being confronted v. Dunlap, 47 Mich. 456; Harper v.
with the witnesses against him if the Lexington, etc. R. Co., 2 Dana (Kan.),
jury view the loeus in quo without 227; Washburn v. Railway Co., 59
his presence." People v. Lowrey, Wis. 364; Springfield v. Dalbey, 139
70 Cal. 193. But see contra, Blythe 111. 84.
V. State, 4 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 435. a Patchin v. Brooklyn, 3 Wend.
iCom. V. Knapp, 9 Pick. (Mass.) (N. Y.) 377; Ken. Cent. Ry. Co. v.
496; State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311; Smith, 20 S. W. Rep. 392.
Com. V. Webster, 5 Cash. (Mass.) * Hey ward v. Knapp, 23 Minn. 5;
295 ; People v. Yut Ling, 74 Cal. 569 ; State v. Lopez, 15 Nev. 407.
State V. Ah Lee, 8 Oreg. 214; Reg. v. * Gaunt v." State, 50 N. J. L. 491.
Martin, L. R. 1 Cr. Cas. Res. 378; «Ante,%S9.
State V, Sasse, 73 Wis. 3. ' Warlick v. White, 76 N. C. 175;
§ 345.] EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 493
evidence obtained in this way has been held to be irrelevant
because, the child's features and personal appearance not hav-
ing yet assumed a permanent character, the resemblance, if
any, would be fallacious.^ The resemblance alone, however
striking, while insufficient evidence to go to the jury as sole
proof of paternity, is a circumstance for them to consider in
connection with evidence of other relevant facts. Where an
inspection of this sort is made by the jury, the person is re-
garded as an exhibit from which the jury alone are to draw
inferences without any oral comments or accompanying ex-
planation, in the same manner that they adopt in the case of
any relevant testimon}'. The appearance of the person, his
form, features and complexion as they appear to the eyes of
the jurors, being evidence of facts within common knowledge,
it is a usurpation of the powers of the jur^'' to admit the opin-
ions of expert or of other witnesses upon such points in con-
nection with the inspection of the person himself.*
Similar comparisons have been allowed where a person's
race or.color was in issue. Here an inspection is of great
value on account of the more or less marked external racial
characteristics which enable all men of ordinary intelligence
to distinguish between the various races of mankind.' So
where the issue is negligence there can be no objection to
permitting the plaintiff to show to the jury the injured mem-
State V. Horton, 100 N. C. 443; v. Gray, 4 Allen, 435. In Garvin v.
Hutchison v. gtate, 19 Neb. 263; State, 53 Miss. 507, the court said:
State V. Smith, 54 Iowa, 104; Risk " Juries may use their eyes as well as
V. State, 19 Ind. 152; Crow v. Jor- their ears." So on cross-examination
dan, 49 Ohio St. 655 ; Gilmanton v. a party or a witness who has testified
Ham, 38 N. H. 108 ; Finnegan v. that he cannot read (Ord v. Fowler,
Dugan, 14 Allen, 197; Scott v. Don- 31 Kan. 478), or has been physically
ovan, 153 Mass. 378 ; State v. Arnold, injured to such an extent that he is
13 Ired. (N. C.) 184; State v. Wood- unable to walk (Hatfield v. Railroad
ruff, 67 N. C. 89. Co., 33 Minn. 130), may or may not
•■State V. Danfortb, 48 Iowa, 43; be directed to read or walk io the
Ingram v. State, 34 Neb. 33; Clark presence of the jury in the discretion
v. Bradstreet, 80 Me. 456 ; 15 Atl. of the court.
Rep. 26 ; Overlook v. Young, 81 Me. ' Garvin t. State, 53 Miss. 207 ;
348; Han a wait V. State, 64 Wis. 84; Clark v. Bradstreet, 80 Me. 456:
Fuller V. Carny, 39 Hun, 47 ; Risk v. Jacobs' Case, 5 Jones (N. C), 359 :
State, 19 Ind. 153. ■ Warlick v. White, 76 N. C. 175;
2 Jones V. Jones, 45 Md. 148; Eddy State v. Arnold, 13 Ired. (N. C.) 184.
49-4 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§ 345.
ber or part of his body as evidence of the effect of the alleged
negligence of the defendant.'
Whether or not the jury will be permitted to determine the
age of a person from his personal appearance or his demeanor
on the witness stand in the total absence of oral evidence has
been variously decided. Some of the cases hold that knowl-
edge obtained by such an examination would be satisfactory
evidence of age.^ Other cases hold that such evidence is in-
competent,^ and that the jurors should not be permitted to de-
termine age solely from an inspection of the person.
Though evidence of resemblance, identity, race or age thus
obtained by inspection admittedly possesses little probative
force because of the unreliability of the untrained powers or
faculties of human observation, this objection cannot be justly
urged to its admissibility, if it is deemed relevant, though
it may bear upon its credibility. Whether a compulsory exam-
ination by the jury of one accused of crime can be construed
into infringing his constitutional right to be protected from
furnishing evidence against himself depends on circumstances.
Where the accused waives his constitutional privileges by
going on the stand and submitting to cross-examination in his
own behalf, he may be directed to exhibit a part of his person
to the jury.* And if the defendant voluntarily, in open court,
stand up and, without objection, permit a witness to identify
him as the person who committed the crime, he cannot after-
wards ask for a new trial on this ground.*
Pointing out a person by a witness to the jury without
naming him is a sufficient identification,^ while if the prisoner
1 Cunningham v. Union Pao. R. State v. Woodruff , 67 N. C. 89 ; State
Co., 4 Utali, 206; 7 Pac. Rep. , 795; v. Hall (Iowa, 1890), 44 N. W. Rep.
Schroeder v. Chicago, etc. Co., 47 914; Garvin v. State, 53 Miss. 207;
Iowa, 375; Louisville, etc. Co. v. State v. Wieners, 66 Mo. 13; Beavers
Wood, 113 Ind. 548; Mulhado v. v. State, 58 Ind. 530 ; Short v. State,
Brooklyn, etc. Co., 30 N. Y. 370. 63 Ind. 376; McDoud v. State, 90
2 New York Pen. Code, § 19; State Ind. 330; Story v. State, 99 id. 418.
V. Arnold, 13 Ired. (N. C.)184; Com. Contra, Blackwell v. State, 67 Ga.
V. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6; Keith v. 76.
New Haven & N. R, Co., 140 Mass. SQallaher v. State, 38 Tex. App.
175. 247; 12 S. W. Rep. 1087; People v.
3 Stephenson v, Arnold, 38 Ind. Goldensen, 76 Cal. 338.
378; Bird v. State, 104 Ind. 384. 6 Com. v. Whitman, 121 Mass. 361.
< State V. Ah Chuey, 14 Nev. 70;
§ 346.] EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 495
refuse to arise to be identified the witness may explain and
rectify his failure or mistake made in the attempt to identify
him;^ nor will all the testimony of the witness be expunged
because he totally fails to identify a prisoner who will not
stand up for that purpose.^
§ 346. Right of the defendant in a criminal trial to con-
front the witnesses against him. — By various guaranties
contained in the United States constitution and in the consti-
tutions of the several states, it is provided that the accused in
a criminal trial shall be entitled to meet his accusers face to
face and that he shall be confronted with the Matnesses against
him.' A statutory provision that the testimony of a deceased or
absent witness shall be competent in a subsequent trial of the
accused v«-hen, at the first trial, a full opportunity was given
the prisoner to cross-examine him, is not a violation of such
a constitutional provision.* Nor is it violated by a rule of
practice which permits the state to admit that a witness would
testify as it is claimed he would in an affidavit by the accused
asking for a continuance because of his absence,^ or by a con-
sent to admit depositions* of absent witnesses, or b}' the fact
that the testimony of a witness against the accused was taken
at the trial by means of an interpreter,'' or by a statutory pro-
vision that if the accused shall escape after the trial has com-
menced the trial may proceed and the witnesses may be ex-
amined in his absence.*
Under some circumstances, particularly where the accused
has had an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses
against him at the preliminary examination, their depositions
may be read at his trial. But it has been held that a steno-
graphic report of the testimon\r taken at the preliminary
examination is inadmissible at the trial, as its admission con-
1 People V. Foley, 27 Weekly Dig. People v. Fish, 125 N. Y. 156. Cf.
(N. Y.) 217. People v. Penhallow, 43 Hun, 103.
2Walsh V. People, 88 N. Y. 458; ^Com. v. Cleary, 23 Atl. Eep. 1110;
Abb. Brief on Facts, g 457. 30 W. N. C. 1; 148 Pa. St. 36. Cf.
'Const. U. S., Am., art. 6; Const. People v. Fish, 125 N. Y. 126.
111., art. 2, g 9; Westfall v. Madison ^Hoyt v. People, 140 111. 588.
Co., 62 Iowa, 427. The provision « People v. Murray, 53 Mich. 288.
in the federal constitution is not ap- ' State v. Hamilton, 42 La. Ann.
plicable to trials in state courts. 1204.
8 Gore V. State, 52 Ark. 285.
496 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§ 34:6a;.
stitutes an infringement of the right of the accused to be con-
fronted with the witnesses against him in the presence of the
court.^ When, however, the absence of the adverse witnesses
is brought about by the accused,' the latter cannot complain
if their testimony, given at a former trial, is introduced in
evidence against him.^ The constitutional right to confront
the witnesses is reciprocal in its nature. Accordingly the
public prosecutor ma}' demand that the witnesses for the pris-
oner shall, when possible, be produced in court in order that
they ma}-^ give their testimony orally and be submitted to a
cross-examination.'
§ 34:6a. The accused as a witness in a criminal prosecu-
tion.— By modern statutes the accused is now a competent
witness in his own behalf, though he cannot, in view of exist-
ing constitutional provisions,'' be placed upon the stand as a
witness against himself. If he shall go on the stand in his
own behalf, the credibility of his testimony is. a question solely
for the jurj'-, though it is not error for the court to instruct the
jury that they should ° or that they may ^ consider the fact of
his interest in the event of the trial, and that the fact that he
is testifying in his own behalf ma}'^ be considered b}' them in
estimating the credit to be given him. The jury should not,
1 People V, Chung Ah Chue, 57 5 state v, Renfrew, 111 Mo. 589;
Cal. 567; People v. Gardner (Cal., People v. Cronin, 34 Cal. 191; Peo-
1893), 32 Pac. Rep. 880. pie v. Crowley, 103 N. Y. 231; An-
2Howser v. Com., 51 Pa. St. 338. derson v. State, 104 Ind. 367; Wil-
In People v. Brogle, 88 N. Y. 585; kins v. State (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep.
10 Abb. N. C. 300, it was held that 313; Chambers v. People, 105 III.
no error was committed by permit- 489; State v. Moelchen, 53 Iowa,
ting a cross-examination by counsel 310; 5 N. W. Rep. 186; State v. Mc-
for defense while defendant was Ginnis, 76 Mo. 326 ; Slate v. Slinger-
temporarily absent. land, 19 Nev. 135.
3 United States v. Angell, 11 Fed. sWilkins v. State (Ala., 1893), 13
Rep. 34. S. Rep. 318; Spies v. People, 133
iV. S. Const, Fifth Amend. The 111. 1; 133 U. S. 131; State v. Ma-
constitutional provision has been guire (Mo., 1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 213;
held applicable not only to criminal State v. Ihrig, ^106 Mo. 267 ; Faulk-
proceedinga in court but to the ner v. Territory (N. Mex., 1893), 30
case of accused persons summoned Pac. Rep. 965; Siebert v. People (111.,'
to appear before the interstate com- 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 431. Contra,
merce commissioners (Counselman Townsend v. State (Miss., 1893), 13
V. Hitchcock, 143 U. S, 547), and to S. Rep. 309. Of. Com. v. Wright,
contempt proceedings. Im re Mc- 107 Mass. 403.
Kenna, 47 Kan. 738.
§ 34:6a.]
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
497
however, permit the fact that the witness is accused of crime
to influence them to such an extent that they will disregard
all his testimony if it is otherwise credible,' but should re-
member that the prisoner is presumed to be innocent until his
guilt is shown upon the whole evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt.i
"Where a person accused of crime takes the stand as a wit-
ness in his own behalf he waives his peculiar constitutional
privileges,^ and is subject to the ordinary rules of examina-
tion, and may be asked the same questions on cross-examina-
tion in regard to his previous life as any other witness.' He
may be asked questions tending to criminate him by connect-
ing him with the crime for which he is on trial,* and his pre-
vious arrest,' indictment or conviction of crime,* his prior
contradictory statements'' or disorderly actions,* or disbelief
iBirdv. State, 107 Ihd. 154; Ran-
dall V. State, 32 N. E. Rep. 305; 183
Ind. 539; State v. Wells, 111 Mo.
589; State v. Sullivan, 28 N. E. Rep.
381; 114 111. 24; State v. Sandars,
106 Mo. 188; 17 S. W. Rep. 233.
See ante, § 234.
2 Clark V. State, 87 Ala. 71.
SDisquev. State, 49 N. J. L. 249.
< People V. Spies, 123 111. 1. See
post, § 354a, for other cases cited on
this point. In some states by stat-
ute it is allowable for the state to
cross-examine the prisoner only as
to those matters referred to in his
direct examination. These statutes
are strictly construed. State v. San-
ders, 14 Oreg. 300 ; State v. Under-
wood, 44 La. Ann. 853; State v.
Baker, 44 id. 1168; Elliott v. State,
34 Neb. 48; 51 N. W. Rep. 315; State
V. Turner, 110 Mo. 196; 19 S. W.
Rep. 645; State v. Chamberlain, 89
Mo. 129. Under these statutes,
which are construed strictly in favor
of the prisoner, it has been held re-
versible error to allow the cross-
examination to extend beyond the
limits of the direct, not only as re-
gards matters relevant to the issue,
33
but also as regards questions affect-
ing the credibility of the accused as
a witness. And this is so where a
different rule is applicable to other
witnesses. State v. Lurch, 12 Oreg.
99, and other cases cited supra in
this note.
6 State V. Murphy (Tex., 1893), 13 S.
Rep. 339 ; People v. Foote, 93 Mich. 38.
estate v. Minor (Mo., 1893), 33 S.
W. Rep. 1083; State v. Alexis, su-
pra; Childs V. State (Tex.. 1893), 33
S. W. Rep. 1039; State v. McGuire,
15 R. I. 53; Prior V. State (Ala., 1893),
13 S. Rep. 681. A prior conviction
of an infamous crime does not de-
prive the defendant in a criminal
trial of the statutory right to testify
in his own behalf. Williams v. State,
13 S. W. Rep. 1103; 28 Tex. App.
301. Cf. §g 317, 318, 319.
7 Hicks v. State (Ala., 1893), 13 S.
Rep. 375 ; May v. State (Tex., 1894).
34 S. W. Rep. 910; Brubaker v. Tay-
lor, 76 Pa. St. 83; State v. Avery
(Mo., 1893), 31 S. W. R6p. 193; Hoff-
man V. State, 28 Tex. App. 174.
8 People V. McCormack, 135 N. Y.
663; Com. v. Barry, 8 Pa. Co, Ct.
Rep. 216.
498 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. [§ 346a;.
in religion,* his attempt to bribe a witness,^ or his simulated
insanity,' may all be brought out by questions put to him to
show what credit he is entitled to as a witness.''
When one of several jointly indicted goes on the stand to
testify in his own behalf alone, he is open to cross-examina-
tion, not only by the district attornej' but by the counsel who
represent the other defendants.' The cross-examination of
the accused should be conducted in a regular manner; nor can
he be directly interrogated by the district attorne}' until he is
properly turned over to him at the close of the direct exam-
ination for that purpose. Eut where the defendant, on tak-
ing his seat after his direct examination, impulsively declares
to the jury that he is a peaceable, law-abiding citizen, and
that he had no idea of committing the crime with which he
is charged, it is not reversible error to permit the district at-
torney to ask him if he had not had trouble with many other
persons.' It has also been held that the court may recall the
accused after his examination for the purpose of further cross-
examination.'
The counsel for the accused is not precluded from objecting
to questions put to the latter on hiS cross-examination upon
the ground that they are irrelevant. In this respect he has
the same right to object to irrelevant questions put to his
client as he wbuld have if they were put to any other wit-
ness called by him.'
1 State V. Turner, 36 S. C. 534. defendant made a similar defense is
2 Bates V. Holladay, 31 Mo. App. not admissible to impeach him.
163. Com. V. Lamon, 29 N. E. Rep. 467 ;
estate V. Pritcher, 101 N. 0. 667. 155 Mass. 168.
4 Bell V. State, 31 Tex. Crim. Rep. sCom. v. Mullen, 150 Mass. 394;
276; People v. Tice, 131 N. Y. 651; 23 N. E. Rep. 51.
McDaniel v. State (Ala., 1883), 12 S. ^Taylor v. Com., 18 S. W. Rep.
Rep. 241 ; State v. Farmer, 84 Me. 852 (Ky., 1892).
436; State V. Walsh, 44 La. Ann. 'State v. Home, 9 Kan. 119; State
1123; Parker v. State (Ind., 1893), v. Johnson, 72 Iowa, 393; State v.
35 N. E. Rep. 1105; United States Kohn, 9 Nev. 179. Where the ac-
V. Brown, 40 Fed. Rep. 457 ; Mitch- cused denies on the witness stand
ell V. State, 94 Ala. 68 ; 10 S. Rep. that he wrote an instrument in issue,
518 ; Com. V. Goodnow, 154 Mass. he may be compelled on cross-exam-
487; Keyes v. State, 133 Ind. 527; ination to write the same words on
Com. V. Lamon, 155 Mass. 168; State paper. United States v. MuUaney,
V. Buell, 89 Mo. 595; State v. Mc- 82 Fed. Rep. 'i'30.
Guire, 15 R. L 23. Evidence that 5 People v. Brown, 72 N, Y. 571?
on a former trial for a similar crime Hanoflf v. State, 37 Ohio St. 178.
§ 346tI.J EXAMINATtON OF WITNESSES. 499
In conclusion it may be said that it is usually provided by
statute that the failure of the accused to testif}'^ must not
be considered as a circumstance against him, nor can it be al-
luded to or commented on by counsel. Under such ti statute
it is the duty of the court to charge that the defendant's silence
creates no presumption of his guilt.' A strict compliance
with such a statutory provision is usually required. So the
prosecuting attorney will not be allowed to evade this require-
ment that he shall keep silence as to the defendant's failure
to testify by calling the attention of the jury to the fact that
none of the neighbors of the defendant in a trial for the mur-
der of his wife was informed by him how the latter came to
her death,^ or by stating to the jury that if the defendant
fails to testify the law forbids the state to comment upon his
failure to do so.' But if the accused goes upon the stand and
testifies to any particular fact, the state may call attention to
his silence regarding or his failure to deny certain other facts
concerning which he must have had personal knowledge;* and
if, after commenting on the failure of defendant to testify at
all, the district attorney withdraws his remarks and the judge
instructs the jury -that defendant's failure to testify must not
be considered, the error is cured.'
iFulcher v. State, 13 S. W. Rep. and Com. v. Hanley, 140 Mass. 457,
750 ; 28 Tex. App. 465 ; State v. Ice, it was held that any allusion by the
34 W. Va. 244; 12 S. E. Rep. 695; court in its charge to the fact that
Staples V. State, 14 S. W. Rep. 603; the defendant has not testified is
89 Tenn. 231; People v. Doyle, 58 error.
Hun, 535 ; McFadden v. State, 28 2 state v. Moxley, 14 S. W. Rep.
Tex. App. 241; Sutton v. Com., 85 969; 15 id. 556; 102 Mo. 374.
Va. 128 ; State v. Mathews, 98 Mo. '■' Jordan v. State, 16 S. W. Rep.
125; State v. Tenison, 22 Pac. Rep. 543; 29 Tex. App. 449.
429; 42 Kan. 302; People v. Rose, ■'state t. Walker (Mo., 1888), 9
52 Hun, 35; "Watt v. People, 126 111. S. "W. Rep. 640; Cotton v. State, 87
9; Nelson v. Harrington, 73 Wis. Ala. 103; Lee v. State (Ark., 1893),
591 ; 40 N. W. Rep. 228 ; Quinn v. 19 S. W. Rep. 6. Contra, State v.
People, 15 N. E. Rep. 46; 123 111. Graves, 95 Mo. 510.
833. In Ruloff v. People, 45 N. Y. 5 People v. Hess, 85 Mich. 128; 48
213; Austin v. People. 103 111. 261; N. W. Rep. 181; State v. Chisnell
State V. Weddington, 103 N. C. 364; (W. Va., 1892), 15 8. E. Rep. 412.
CHAPTER XXiy.
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES.
§ 347. Party cannot impeach his
own witness.
348. Exceptions to the rule that a
party vouches for his own
witnesses.
349. How the adverse witness
may be impeached — Gen-
eral reputation for verac-
ity, etc.
350. Impeachment by proving
contrary statements or si-
lence of witness on a for-
mer occasion.
351. Falsus in uno falsus in om-
nibus.
§ 352,
Evidence of general reputa-
,tion of an impeached wit-
ness.
Privileges of witnesses —
Questions disclosing pe-
cuniary liability.
Questions tending to dis-
grace the witness.
Questions calculated to ex-
pose the witness to a crimi-
nal charge.
3546. Bias and prejudice of the
witness.
353.
354.
354a.
§ 347. Party cannot impeach his own witness. — The word
" impeach," when employed ia connection with the examina-
tion of a witness in court, has a twofold application, because
of which some ambiguity may arise. When used in connec-
tion with the witness himself, — as, for example, in the phrase
to impeach one's own witness, — it means to attempt to prove
him unreliable or unworthy of belief. On thei other hand,
when employed in connection with the evidence of the wit-
ness, or more strictly speaking in connection with the credit
to be given his evidence, its meaning is to disparage, destroy
or render useless. A party will not be permitted, as a gen-
eral rule, to impeach the veracity and credibility of any wit-
ness that he calls in his own behalf. It is very reasonable to
presume that he is well acquainted with the character and
previous life of his witnesses and that he knows whether they
are habitually truthful or not. But this rule and its excep-
tions should be qualified by the statement that it is only ap-
plicable to impeaching testimony which shows, first, that the
character of the witness for truthfulness is bad; second, that
he has made contradictory statements out of court; or, third,
§347.]
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES.
501
to contradicting him solely with a view to impeach him and
not incidentally in proving other acts referred to.^ For it
is well settled that a party is not to be enjoined from prov-
ing any relevant fact by a witness' because his testimony to
that fact directly contradicts, and thus discredits necessarily,
the testimony of another of the party's witnesses to that or
to some other relevant fact. ISTor is it material that the gen-
eral effect of such a conflict of evidence is to prove that
either one or the other of the witnesses was wholly unworthy
of. confidence or belief.^ Where a part}', in cross-examining,
makes his adversary's witness his own by going into matters
outside of the examination-in-chief of the witness, he will not
then be allowed to impeach him,' but the party who originally
called the witness may.* In the absence of a statute to the
contrary, where a party summons his adversary as a witness
he vouches for his credibility.^ This rule has, however, been
abrogated by statute in some of the states, and the party
calling the adverse party may examine and impeach him as
1 Chester v. Wilhelm, 111 N. C.
314; Pollock v. Pollock, 71 N. Y.
137 ; Cross v. Cross, 108 id. 629 ; Na-
tional Syrup Co. v. Carlsop, 43 111.
App. 178; Snodgrass v. Com., 17 S.
E. Rep. 238; Chism v. State (Miss.,
1893), 12 S. Rep. 852; Thalheimer v.
Klapetzy, 59 Hun, 619;. Eastern
Lum. Co. V. Gill, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. R.
630: Dixon v. State, 86 Ga. 754;
Artz V. Chicago R. R. Co., 44 Iowa,
284. " By calling him to testify the
party represents his witness as
worthy of credit, or at least as not
wholly unworthy of credit. For
him to attack the veracity of the
witness would be bad faith towards
the court and give power to destroy
the witness if unfavorable and to
make good if favorable. Hence
while a party may contradict inci-
dentally he cannot ordinarily im-
peach his witness.'' United States
V. Watkins, 3 Cranch 0. C. 442 ; 1
Greenl. onEv., §§461, 462; Sheppard
V. Yocum, 10 Oreg. 410.
2McFarland v. Ford, 33 111. App.
173; Cross v. Cross, 108 N. Y. 629:
Lawrence. V. Barker, 5 Wend. 305;
Cowden v. Reynolds, 12 S. & R. 281 ;
Moffatt V. Terney, 30 Pac. Rep. 348 ;
17 Colo. 189; Cross v. Cross, 108
N. Y. 629 ; Hollingsworth v. State,
79 Ga. 603; Warren v. Gabriel, 51
Ala. 235 ; Pollock v. Pollock, 71 N. Y.
137; Hall v. Houghton, 37 Me. 411;
Chester V. Wilhelm, 111 N. C. 314;
Seavy v. Dearborn, 19 N. H. 351;
Coulter V. Amer. Exp. Co., 56 N. Y.
585; Edwards v. Crenshaw, 30 Mo.
App. 510.
3 Hill V. Froehlick, 14 N. Y. S. 610.
4 Pickard v. Bryant, 52 N. W. Rep.
788; 92 Mich. 430; Smith v. Utesch
(Iowa, 1892), 53 N. W. Rep. 343.
5 Good V. Knox (Vt., 1892), 23 Atl.
Rep. 520 ; Bensberg v. Harris, 46 Mo.
App. 404; Tarsney v. Turner, 48 Fed.
Rep. 818; Graves v. Davenport, 50
Fed. Rep. 881 ; Dravo v. Fabel, 132
U. S. 487,
502 IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. [§ 348.
thouffh he were testifving in his own behalf.^ But tlie stat-
utory right to call a party as a witness does not, alone and
by implication, confer the right to impeach him.^
§ 348. Exceptions to the rule that a party Touches for
his own witnesses. — If the witness is one that the law thrusts
on the party, he is not, strictly speaking, his own witness, and
the party does not vouch for his truthfulness. So where a
subscribing witness is called to testify to the execution of a
deed or a will, the party who is under the necessity of calling
him is not concluded by his answers, and may impeach his
character for veracity, or prove the execution by another wit-
ness in case he denies it.' Again, the claims of a party should
not be sacrificed or defeated out of consideration for a treach-
erous witness who, when placed upon the stand, intentionally
misrepresents the facts or states them differently from what
he had previously told the party out of court. The witness
may have been, or may be now, in the secret employment or
under the control of the adverse party, and he may have made
the extra-judicial statements for the purpose of being called,
as a witness, intending to confound the party calling him by
his hostile testimony.
1 Crocker v. Agenbrod, 133 Ind. laying a foundation for his impeach-
585; Schmidt v. Durnham (Minn., ment. Bennett v. State, 38 Tex. App.
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 377; Oa. Stat., 359.
Act Oct. 14, 1891 ; Landford v. 2 Good v. Knox, 33 Atl. Rep. 530 ;
Jones, 18 Oreg. 307; 33 Pac. Rep. 64 Vt.97.
1064; De Meli v. De Meli, 130 N. Y. 3 Orser v. Orser, 34 N. Y. 51 ; Sem-
485; Webber v. Jackson (Mich., inary v. Calhoun, 35 N, Y. 422;
1890), 44 N. W. Rep. 591 ; Helms v. SharSy v. Hursey, 33 Me. 579 ; Peck
Green, 105 N. C. 251. The evidence v. Cary, 37 N. Y. 9; Tliornton v.
of an adverse party, taken before Thornton, 39 Vt. 133 ; Foster v. Dick-
trial for his opponent's use, may be inson, 64 id. 283 ; Crocker v. Agen-
! impeached at the trial. Crocker v. brod, 128 Ind. 587; Freer v. Will-
Agenbrod, 122 Ind. 585. Qf. Miller iams, 7 Baxt. 550, 556 ; Edwards v.
V. Cook, 134 id. 101. Where the Crenshaw, 30 Mo. App, 510; Hil-
statute permits the testimony of the dreth v. Aldrich, 15 R. I. 63 ; Mays
adverse party to be impeached by v. Mays (Mo., 1893), 31 S. W. Rep,
"adverse testimony," his credibility 931; Martin v. Perkins, 56 Miss,
and reputation cannot be attacked 204 ; Brown v. Bellows, 4 Pick. 179
directly. Helms v. Green, 105 N. C. Whitaker v. Galesburg, 15 id. 544
351 A party does not lose his right Garrison v. Garrison, 15 N. J. Eq,
to impeach an adverse witness by 366; Turner v. Cheesman, 15 id. 243
recalling him with the sole object of Williams v. Walker, 3 Rich. Eq. 391
§ 348.]
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES.
503
In spite of some uncertainty, the current of the decisions
now sustains the proposition that a party may show that the
evidence of such a witness has taken him wholly by surprise,'
and he may then proceed to impeach its credibility. So the
party raa^' show by questioning the witness that the latter has
been or is under the influence of his opponent, and he may be
aslied if he has made contradictory statements out of court.^
In many of the states it is enacted by statute that, if a hos-
tile witness denies that he has made contradictory statements,
a party may show by other witnesses that the witness has
made prior statements inconsistent with his testimony. These
statutes being in derogation of the common law must be
strictly construed.' So the circumstances of time and place
under which the contradictory statements were made must be
particularly described to the witness, it not being sufBcient
merely to ask him if he has not made inconsistent statements
to some particular person.* Where one to lay a foundation
for a charge of fraud introduces a writing as evidence, the rule
that a party vouches for his witness is not applicable, as in
Defifenderfer v. Scott, 33 N. E. Eep.
87; Goodtitle v. Clayton, 4 Burr.
3824; Scribner v. Crane, 3 Paige,
147. Evidence of the bad character
of a subscribing witness was rejected
in Boylan v. Meeker, 4 Dutch. 275.
1 National Syrup Co. v. Carlson, 42
111. App. 178; Williams v. State, 25
Tex. App. 176: McNerney v. Read-
ing, 150 Pa. St. 611 ; 30 W. N. C.
534. The fact that a witness on the
stand appears wholly ignorant of the
facts In issue or fails to testify as
was expected does not, unless he
gives hostile evidence, permit the
party examining to show that he
made the desired statements out of
court or that he professed to have a
competent knowledge of the matter.
Chism V. State (Miss., 1898), 12 S.
Eep. 852; People v. Mitchell, 94 Cal.
550; 29Pao. Eep. 1106.
2 Davis V. State (Tex., 1893), 21 S.
W. Rep. 369 ; BuUard v. Pearsall, 53
N. Y. 230; Rice v. N. E. Ins. Co., 4
Pick. 439 ; Brown v. Bellotvs, 4 id.
179; Hurlbut v. Hurlbut, 63 Vt. 667;
Bank of Northern Liberties, 6 W. &
S. 285 ; Adams v. Wheeler, 97 Mass.
67; Coulter v. American Express
Co., 56 N. Y. 585; People v. Jacobs,
49 Cal. 384; State v. Sorter (Kan.;
1893), 34 Pac. Rep. 1036 ; Gardner v.
Connelly, 75 Iowa, 205. But it has
been held that the answer of the
witness is conclusive on the party.
Hall V. Railroad Co., 51 N. W. Rep.
150 (Iowa, 1892).
3 Williams v. State (Tex., 1888), 7
S. W. Rep. 661; Hemingway v.
Garth, 51 Ala. 530; Blackburn v.
Com., 13 Bush, 181; Day v. Cooley,
118 Mass. 524; Brooks v. Weeks, 121
id. 433; Newell V. Homer, 130 id. 377.
*Com. V. Thyng, 134 Mass. 191;
People V. Bushton, 80 Cal. 161. See
ante, % 342.
504: IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. [§ 349.
such a case there is no witness and he may therefore discredit
it subsequently.'
In general, the intention to impeach a witness is to be ascer-
tained rather from the actual purpose of the question than
from its mere form. Thus, a question to one's own witness
■whether he has not testified differently at a former trial is not
inadmissible where its sole purpose is to refresh the recollec-
tion of the witness, not to impeach him.^
In conclusion it may be said that the rule against impeach-
ing one's own witness does not apply after the adverse party
has called the witness to testify in his behalf against the party
who first called him.^
§ 34:9. How adverse witness may Ibe impeached — General
reputation for veracity, etc. — The credibility of a witness
who has been examined in chief may be impeached not only by
contradicting the facts as stated by him in his evidence by
other witnesses, but by evidence directly tending to destroy
his general reputation for truthfulness. In impeaching the
general reputation of a witness for veracity it is proper to ask
the impeaching witness, who ought to be called from among
persons resident near the witness whose reputation is under
consideration,* whether he knows the general reputation of
1 Henry Buggy Co. v. Pratt, 73 * Redden v. Tefft (Kan., 1893), 39
Iowa, 485; 35 N. W. Rep. 587; Pac. Rep. 157 ; Louisville, N. A. etc.
Bunce v. Gallegher, 5 Blatch. 481. Co. v. Richardson, 66 Ind. 43; Healey
2 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hurt v. Terry, 9 N. Y. S. 519; State v.
(Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 130. K party Johnson, 41 La. Ann. 574; People v.
who, to avoid a continuance, admits Markham, 64 Cal. 157. This rule
the facts to which an absent witness applies in a prosecution for crime
will testify is thereby precluded when the accused testifies in his own
from impeaching him. North Chi- behalf. State v. Rugan, 5 Mo. App.
cago St. R. Co. V. Cottingham, 44 593; State v. Beal, 68 Ind. 845;
111. App. 46; Powers v. State, 80 Mershon v. State, 51 Ind. 14. So the
Ind. 77. If, however, he only ad- reputation must be recent. Sun Fire
mits that the witness will testify as Office v. Ayerst, 55 N. W. Rep. 635.
it is alleged he will, he may impeach But evidence of bad reputation two
him, though he is absent. State v. or more years before the trial is com-
Swain, 68 Mo. 605. petent, as no presumption exists that
spickard v. Bryant (Mich., 1893), a person of mature age would by ref-
53 N. W. Rep. 788 ; Smith v. Utisch ormation acquire a good reputation
(Iowa, 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 343. But in that period, Mynatt v. Hudson,
cf. Richards v. Sti.te (Wis., 1893), 51 66 Tex, 66 ; Davis v. Com. (Ky., 1893),
N, W. Rep. 653. 23 S. W. Rep. 585. " It has been
§ 349.]
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES.
50&
A. and what that reputation is. So the witness may also
be asked whether from what he knows of him and from his
reputation he would believe A. under oath.^ But the fact that
a witness fails to state that he would not believe the witness
under oath will not prevent the introduction of evidence of
the bad reputation of the witness.^
The question whether the witness would, from his knowl"
edge of the party, believe him under oath was excluded by
the earlier American cases as calling for the expression of a
conclusion or opinion b}"^ a non-expert witness. It was con-
sidered as an unwarranted departure from the established
rules of law, as tending to permit the prejudice and personal
bias of a witness to infect the minds of the jurors and as in-
vading their province as triers of the facts.' But the existence
of a person's reputation, i. e., what the community in which
he resides says of hirp, is a fact which any witness may prove
who has learned the reputation from what he hears. " "What
said that the regular mode of exam-
ining a witness is to inquire whether
he knows the general character of
the person whom it is intended to
impeach. In all such cases the word
'character' is used as synonymous
with ' reputation.' What is wanted
is the common opinion in which
there is general concurrence ; in other
words, general reputation or charac-
ter attributed ; that is presumed to
he indicative of actual character."
Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. 588.
1 Mayes v. State (Tex., 1893), 24 S.
W. Rep. 421; State v. Boswell, 3
Dev. 209, 211 ; Hudspeth v. State, 50
Ark. 534 ; Ford v. Ford, 7 Humph. 93 ;
People V. Mather, 4 Wend. 257, 258;
1 Hill (S. C), 258; Wetherbee v.
Norris, 103 Mass. 565 ; State t. Chris-
tian, 44 La. Ann. 950 ; Hamilton v.
People, 39 Mich. 173; Nelson v. State
(Fla., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 361; Lyman
V. Philadelphia, 56 Pa. St. 483;
People V. Tyler, 85 Cal. 553: National
Bank v. Scriven, 63 Hun, 375 ; Eason
V. Chapman, 31 111. 35; State v.
Johnson, 40 Kan. 366; Keator v.
People, 33 Mich. 484. Contra, King
V. Peakman, 20 N. J. Eq. 316 ; Grif-
fin V. State, 26 Tex. App. 157; Mar-
shall V. State, 5 Tex. App. 273.
"Unwillingness to believe a man
under oath must be based upon two
facts — that the witness knows the
reputation for veracity among the
man's neighbors and that such repu-
tation is bad." Spies et al. v. People,
123 III. 208. If, is error to instruct
the jury that they may rely upon
their personal knowledge of the
character of the witnesses. Chatta-
nooga, etc. Co. V. Owen(Ga., 1893),
15 S. E. Rep. 853. See § 343, ante.
2 Mitchell V. State, 94 Ala. 68 ; 10
S. Rep. 518. The fact that a witness
accepted a very small sum of money
in satisfaction of a slanderous accu-
sation of perjury made against him
may be given in evidence to show
that he estimates his own reputation
at a low figure. Bird v. Hudson
(N. C, 1893), 18 S. E. Rep. 309.
3 Phillips V, Kingfleld, 1 Appleton,
375.
506
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES.
[§ 349.
the witness has heard is the reputation." ' If, however, such
evidence be regarded as an opinion, then it is admissible on
the same ground as are opinions of a person's sanity, temper,
etc. The impeaching witness cannot be permitted to testify
to the commission of any specific acts of untruthfulness or
other bad conduct.^ He will be required to confine his evi-
dence strictly to showing the reputation of the witness, not
his actions;^ for it is admitted that no man can with fairness
be called upon, without notice, to defend his particular actions,
perhaps long since forgotten by him.* The impeaching wit-
ness need not be personally acquainted with the witness,' and
he may be cross-examined to ascertain how he acquired the
knowledge on which his opinion is based or his general char-
acter for truthfulness may in turn be attacked.* By some of
the cases evidence of this sort is confined to proving the good
or bad reputation of the witness for veracity alone,'' and if the
witness has no knowledge upon that point he is wholly in-
competent to testify.^ But elsewhere greater latitude is per-
iCooley, J., in Bathrick v. Detroit
P. & T. Co., 50 Mich. 658.
2 State V. Rogers (Mo., 1893), 18 S.
W. Rep. 976 ; Rattarre v. Chapman,
79 Ga. 574; People v. O'Brien, 96
Cal. 371 ; Davey v. Lohrman, 80 N.
Y. S. 675 ; Mentze v. Tuteur, 77 Wis.
236; Smith v. State, 88 Ala. '73;
People V. Ryan, 55 Hun, 314; Com.
V. Fox (Ky., 1890), 1 S. W. Rep. 396.
3 Mentze v. Tuteur, 77 Wis. 336 ; 46
N. W. Rep. 183 ; Clink v. Gunn (Mich.,
1893), 51 N. W. Rep. 193 ; Moreland
V. Lawrence, 33 Minn. 84 ; Smith v.
State, 88 Ala. 73; Fox v. Com. (Ky.,
1891), 1 S. W. Rep. 396; Randall v.
State, 138 Ind. 539; Conley v. State,
85 N. Y. 618 ; Dimick v. Downs, 83
lib 570.
* " All the oases agree that the in-
quiry must be restricted to his gen-
eral reputation for truthfulness or to
his general character, and that it
cannot be extended to particular
facts or transactions, for the reason
that while every man is supposed to
be fully prepared to meet those gen-
eral inquiries, it is not likely he
would be prepared, without notice,
to answer as to particular acts."
Tees V. Huntingdon, 33 How. 11-13.
estate V. Turner, 36 S. C. 534.
estate V. Perkins, 66 N. C, 186;
Nelson v. State (Fla., 1893), 13 S.
Rep. 861. If a party, to impeach his
adversary's witness, offers evidence
which impeaches his own witness,
he should not be allowed to endeavor
to rebut it. Mealer v. State (Tex.,
1893), 83 S. W. Rep. 143.
■? Spears v. Forrest, 15 Vt. 435;
State V. Clawson, 30 Mo. App. 139;
Kennedy v. Shaw, 66 Tex. 443;
Briggs V. Com., 88 Va. 554; Bates
V. Barber, 4 Cush. 107; State v.
Jackson, 44 La, Ann. 160; Sleeper v.
Van Middlesworth, 4 Denio, 431;
People V. Abbott (Mich., 1898), 56 N.
W. Rep. 868.
8 Healey v. Terry, 9 N. Y. S. 519;
State v. Coffey, 44 Mo. App. 455;
Com. V. Lawler, 13 Allen (Mass.),
§ 350.]
IMPEACHMENT OF "WITNESSES.
507
mitted, and it is held that evidence may be given involving
the whole moral character of the person whose evidence is
impeached, on the theory that where a person is shown to
have been addicted to a vicious habit of living, indicating
great moral turpitude, it is a very fair inference that his char-
acter for truthfulness is also bad and that he would perjure
himself if it was to his interest to do so.^
§ 350. Impeachment by proving contrary statements or
silence of witness on a former occasion.—" Every witness
under cross-examination in any proceeding, civil or criminal,
may be asked whether he has made any former statement
relative to the subject-matter of the action and inconsistent
with his present testimony, the circumstances of the supposed
statement being referred to sufficiently to designate the par-
ticular occasion; and if he does not distinctly admit that he
has made such a statement, proof may be given that he did
in fact make it. The same course may be taken with a wit-
ness upon his examination in chief if the judge is of opinion
that he is adverse {i. e., hostile) to the party by whom he was
called a.nd permits the question."*
585; State v. Jackson (La., 1893), 10
S. Eep. 600; State v. Perkins, 66
N. C. 126; Holmes v. State, 88 Ala.
29; Redden v. Teft (Kan., 1892), 29
Pac. Rep. 157. A party is not pre-
cluded from offering cumulative evi-
dence of bad character because lie
has already impeached the character
of a witness. Browder v. State, 30
Tex. App. 614; 18 S. W. Rep. 197.
iMcTyler v. State (Ga., 1893), 18
S.. E. Rep. 140; Pierce v. Newton, 13
Gray, 528 ; Gilliam v. State, 1 Head,
38; Eason v. Chapman, 21 111. 33;
State V. Miller, 98 Mo. 263 ; State v.
Boswell, 2 Dev. (N. C.) 200, 210 ; Peo-
ple V. Webster {N. Y., 1893), 84 N.
E. Rep. 730 ; State v. McClintiok, 73
Iowa, 603; People v. Harrison, 53
N. W. Rep. 725; 93 Mich. 594;
Crump V. Com. (Ky., 1893), 20 S. W.
Rep. 390 ; Winter v. Cent. Iowa R.
Co., 45 N. W. Rep. 737; HoUings-
worth V. State, 53 Ark. 3S7; Mitchell
V. State, 94 Ala. 68; 10 S. Rep. 518;
State V. Raven (Mo., 1893), 22 S. W.
Eep. 376. A male witness cannot
be impeached by proof of his general
reputation for unchastity. State v.
Coffey, 44 Mo. App. 455. The fact
that a female witness is a prostitute
may be shown by her own admis-
sions on the stand or by independent
evidence ; but, while the testimony
of such witnesses should be closely
scrutinized by the jury, they should
not be disbelieved on account of
their bad character for unchastity if
otherwise credible. People v. Mills,
94 Mich. 630; Paul v. Paul, 37 N. J.
Eq. 25. Nor should evidence that a
witness has been fined in an inferior
court be received to impeach his
character where it is not shown that
he committed any offense which is
immoral per se. Goode v. State
(Tex., 1893), 24 S. W. Eep. 102.
2 Stephen's Dig. Ev., art. 131. See
ante, g 336.
508
IMPEACHMENT OP WITNESSES.
[§ 350.
In order to impeach a witness by proof that he has made
contradictory statements out of court, it is always necessary
in fairness to him to lay a foundation by first asking him upon
his cross-examination, clearly and distinctly, whether he did
or did not at some particular time and place and in the pres-
ence of or to some particular person make such statements.*
By having his attention directly called to the particular cir-
1 This rule was so thoroughly dis-
cussed in the Queen's Case, 3 Bred. &
Biog. 313, 314, that it is sometimes
called " the rule in the Queen's
case." But the court in that case
only afBrmed a principle which was
already well recognized in the com-
mon law. The court says: "If the
witness admits the words imputed
to him, the proof on the other side
becomes unnecessary ; and the wit-
ness has 'an opportunity of giving
such reason, explanation or exculpa-
tion of his conduct, if any there may
be, as the particular circumstances
of the transaction may happen to
furnish ; and thus the whole matter
is brought before the court at once,
which in our opinion is the better
course. If the witness denies the
words imputed to him, the adverse
party has an opportunity afterwards
of contending that the matter is
such that he is not bound by the an-
swer, and his proof in contradiction
will be received at the proper sea-
son." See, also, Cohn v. Heinibauch
(Wis., 1893), 56 N. W. Eep. 638;
Com. V. Mosier, 135 Pa. St. 231;
Bruce v. State, 31 S. W. Rep. 681 ;
31 Tex. Cr. App. 590 ; State v. Tur-
ner, 15 S. E. Rep. 603; 36 S. C. 534;
McCulloch V. Doleson, 133 N. Y, 114;
Zebley v. Storey, 117 Pa. St. 478;
Spohn V. Mo. P. R. Co. (Mo., 1893),
33 S. W. Rep. 690 ; State v. .Tones,
44 La. Ann. 960; State v. Calligan,
41 La. Ann. 574, 578; Jones v. State,
65 Miss. 179; State v, M'Laughlin,
44 Iowa, 83 ; Kent v. State, 43 Ohio
St. 439 ; State v. Glynn, 51 Vt. 577 ■,
Hanscom v. Burmood, 35 Neb. 504;
Bonnelli v. Bowen (Miss., 1893), 11
S. Rep. 791; Greer v. Higgins, SO
Kan. 420 ; State v. Baldwin, 36 id. 1 ;
State V. Davis, 29 Mo. 391 ; St. Louis,
L M. & S. R. Co. V. Swelt (Ark.,
1893), 31 S. W. Rep. 587; Jackson v.
Swope (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep.
909; Wright v. Hicks, 15 Ga. 160;
State V. Hunsaker, 16 Oreg. 497;
Morris v. Atl. Ave. R. R. Co., 116 N.
Y. 556; Diflfenderfer v. Scott (Ind.,
1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 87; Hughes v.
Ward, 38 Kan. 452; Hammond v.
Dike, 42 Minn. 273 ; Babcock v. Peo-
ple, 13 Colo. 515 ; Klug v. State, 77
Ga. 734 ; Koehler v. Buhl, 94 Mich.
496; Bock v. Wygant, 5 111. App.
643; State v. Wright, 75 N. C. 439;
Root V. Borst, 65 Hun, 623 ; State v.
Parker, 96 Mo. 383. The witness
may be contradicted by his testi-
mony given on a prior trial of the
same case if he asserts that his pres-
ent testimony is the same as that
previously given (Hudson v. State,
28 Tex. App. 323; Bennett v. Syn-
dicate Ins. Co., 43, Minn. 48; Brown
V. State, 76 Ga. 623), and he should
be allowed to explain the contradic-
tion. State y. Reed, 62 Me. 129. Of.
Toplitz V. Hedden, 146 U. S. 353;
Phifer v. Erwin, 100 N. C. 59; 6 S.
E. Rep. 673. A question whether
the witness had not made a contra-
dictory statement "last July" is
sufficiently definite as to time. State
V. Walters (Wash., 1893), 34 Pac.
Rep. 938, 1098.
§ 350.] IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. 509
cumstances under which his alleged inconsistent declaration
was "made, he is not taken unfairly by surprise, but, his mem-
ory refreshed by these facts, he may be able to show that he
was innocently mistaken or that he was misunderstood, or he
may explain away the seeming inconsistency of his statements
by showing their true relation, meaning and purpose.
Where a witness, when asked if he made certain contra-
dictory statements, declares he does not remember making
them, evidence may be adduced to show that he made them,'
without further foundation for their introduction.^ AYhether
the witness denies making the contradictory statement or
declares that he does not remember it, the question asked
the witness who is called to impeach him should be the same
as respects the time, place and substance of the contradict-
ory statement as the question put to the original witness.
The question also should be so shaped as to admit of "yes"
or " no " for an answer." If the witness is a party, his contra-
dictory statements are admissible as direct evidence and not
merely' as impeaching evidence. Hence it is not necessary to
lay a foundation for their introduction if the party has, in the
course of the trial, a full opportunity to testify.*
The rule as above stated is equally applicable whether the
evidence to be impeached is oral and given viva voce in open
court or is contained in a deposition;' but in the case of affi-
davits and depositions, which are generally formal in their
phraseology, the considerations pointed out by Lord Lang-
dale ° should never be lost sight of. In the case cited the un-
fairness of comparing an affidavit made out of court by one
• 1 Smith V. state (Tex., 1898), 20 S. gan v. Butcher, 37 N. W. Rep. 596;
W. Rep. 554; Heddles v. Chicago, 22 Neb. 523; King v. State, 77 Ga.
etc. Co., 77 Wis. 228; Levy v. State, 734; Young v. Bradley, 94 Cal. 138;
28 Tex. App. 203; Payne v. State, 60 Lewis v. State (Ga., 1893), 16 S. E.
Ala. 80 ; Billings v. State, 52 Ark. Rep. 986.
303. Cf. Mayer v. Stone, 21 Neb. 5 Qilyard v. State (Ala., 1893), ID
717. S. Rep. 891 ; United States v. Taylor,
2 Fuller V. State, 30 Tex App. 559 ; 35 Fed. Rep. 484 ; Hammond v. Dike,
17 S. W. Rep. 1108. 42 Minn. 273; Tabor v. Judd, 62 N.
3 Pence v. Waugh (Ind., 1894), 34 H. 288; Marx v. Strauss, 90 Ala. 453;
N. E. Rep. 860. Leiber v. Railroad Co. (Iowa, 1892),
< Meyer v. Campbell, 20 N. Y. S. 50 N. W. Rep. 547.
705; 1 Misc. Rep. 283; Rose v. Otis « In Johnston v. Todd, 5 Beav. 600.
(Colo., 1893), 31 Pac. Rep. 493; Milli-
510 IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. [§ 350.
who is unskilled in or ignorant of the proper use of language
with his subsequent spontaneous replies in oral examination'
in open court is pointed out. In such a case the language of
the affidavit is not his; and though it may have been read to
him before he signed it by the person whom he trusted to
voice his ideas in proper form, he may totally misunderstand
the meaning of a writing couched in such unusual and often
technical language. These considerations, together with the
agitation and hurry of a cross-examination, and the trickery
and intimidation too often practiced upon ignorant witnesses,
go far to render any comparison which is made between the
testimony of a witness taken in open court and his prior affi-
davit ver}' misleading and unreliable.^
Where the contradictory statement is a writing the coun-
sel is bound, if he intends to contradict the witness, to show
the writing to the witness and ask him if he wrote it, or call
his attention to the part contradictory of his evidence.^ If he
admits that he wrote it, the whole must then be read to him
as the best evidence of what is contained in it. The witness
cannot be asked whether he made certain statements in the
letter unless the whole of it is read.' Sometimes a portion of
1 Johnston v. Todd, 5 Beav. 600, been committed to writing and ad-
603, cited 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 462. mitted by consent, is open to contra-
2 Foster v. Worthington, 146 Mass. diction if its truth is not also admit-
607 ; Perishable Freight T. Co. v. ted, to the same extent as though the
O'Neill, 41 III. App. 433; Maxted v. witness had testified viva voce in
Fowler, 94 Mich. 106; People v. Ching, open court, even though no founda-
74 Cal. 389; Weymouth v. Broad- tion can be laid. United States v.
way, etc. Co., 3 Misc. R. 506; Gunter Taylor, 35 Fed. Rep. 484.
V. State, 83 Ala. 96; State v. Crow, 3 Dunbar v. McGill, 69 Mich. 297;
107 Mo. 341 ; Robinson v. State, 184 Richmond v. Sundborg, 77 Iowa,
111. 366. A deposition when it is of- 258 ; § 33. Where it is attempted to
fered at a ti'ial cannot be impeached impeach a witness by his inconsist-
by an earlier deposition containing ent statements made on the prelim-
contVadictory statements, though on inary examination of the prisoner,
account of the death of the witness his testimony, if in writing, should
it is impossible to lay a foundation be shown to him and the inconsist-
by calling his attention to them, encies pointed out. State v Garden,
Eppert V. Hall (Ind., 1893), 81 N. 84 Ala. 217; Simmons v. State (Ala.,
E. Rep. 74. Contra, Thompsort v. 1893), 13 S. Rep. 896. It may then
Gregor, 11 Colo. 531. On the other be read or as much of it as the wit-
hand it has been held that the evi- ness denies. State v. Jones, 29 S. C.
dence of absent witnesses, which has 201.
350.]
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES.
)11
a writing may be shown to the witness and the question put
to him, Did you write that? He cannot, however, be exam-
ined upon writing at all if he denies that he is the author of
that part, nor can the attorney for the adverse party ex-
amine the paper.^
"Where a witness is asked if he has not made a contradictory ,
statement out of court in regard to some matter which is
wholly irrelevant to the issue and he replies that he has not,
his answer is conclusive, and he cannot in the absence of a
statute be contradicted by the party cross-examining him.-
If a witness is proved to have made contradictor}'- statements
out of court, questions on re-examination to show that he
has made oth€r statements consistent with Lis testimony are
not universall}' considered allowable,' though where, because
of relationship to the party or to the subject-matter of the
1 The Queen's Case, 2 B. & B. 288.
The English rule is thus laid down
by Sir James Stephen: "A witness
under cross-examination (or a wit-
ness whom the judge has permitted
to be examined by the party who
called him as to previous statements
inconsistent with his present testi-
mony) may be questioned as to pre-
vious statements made by him in
writing, or reduced into writing, rel-
ative to the subject-matter of the
cause, without such writing being
shown to hira (or being proved in
the first instance); but if it is in-
tended to contradict him by the
writing, his attention must, before
such contradictory proof can be
given, be called to those parts of the
writing which are to be used for the
purpose of contradicting him. The
judge may at any time during
the trial i-equire the document to be
produced for his inspection, and may
thereupon make such use of it for
the purposes of the trial as he thinks
fit." Dig., art. 132. Contradictory
statements are not admissible to im-
peach a deposition where the atten-
tion of the witness was not called to
them -when his deposition was taken.
Fitch v. Keunard, 19 N. Y. S. 468.
2 Jones v.'Lumber Co. (Ark., 1893),
23 S. W. Rep. 679;' Union P. R. Co.
V. Reese, 56 Fed. Rep. 288; Carter
V. State (Neb., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep.
853; Hill V. State (Tenn., 1892), 19
S. W. Rep. 674; Second Nat. Bank
V. Wenzel, 151 Pa. St. 143: Murphy
V. Com., 18 N. Y. S. 353; 28 Abb. N.
C. 207; State v. Morris, 109 N. C.
820; Murphy v. Com., 23 Gratt. (Va.)
960 ; Com. v. Buzzell, 16 Pick. 157 ;
Com. v. Jones, 155 Mass. 170; 29 N.
E. Rep. 467; Phila. etc. Co. v. Stinip-
Bon, 14 Peters, 461 ; Harils v. Wil-
son, 7 "Wend. 57 ; Lake Erie, etc. Co.
V. Morain, 29 N. E. Rep. 869 ; 36 111.
App. 863.
3 Davis V. Graham (Colo., 1893), 29
Pac. Rep. 1007; Robb v. Hackley, 23
Wend. 50; Smith v. Stickney, 17
Barb. (N. Y.) 489; People v. Doyell,
48 Cal. 85 ; Fallin v. State, 83 Ala. 5 ;
State v. Flint, 60 Vt. 304; Smith v.
Morgan, 38 Me. 468; Maitland v.
Bank, 40 Md. 540 ; Williams v. State,
24 Tex. App. 637; Railroad Co. v.
Davis, 1 Gray, 88 ; Connor v. People
(Colo., 1893), 38 Pac. Rep. 159;
512 IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. [§ 351.
•cause, it is sought on cross-examination to show that the
witness is strongly biased, the party calling him may show
that before the relationship existed he made a similar state-
ment to what he has testified to on his direct examination.'
Sometimes it is attempted to impeach a witness as regards
particular matters testified to by him by showing that he was
silent or that he concealed his knowledge of such facts on a
prior occasion when he might naturally have been expected
to speak.
That a witness on a second trial recollects a material fact
which he did not testify to on the first trial is a suspicious
circumstance in itself. The fact that he withheld testimony
•of that fact, or denied that he possessed any knowledge of it,
is never conclusive of the unreliability of his later testimony;
for he ma}'^ be permitted to explain the reasons of his pre-
vious denial, silence or real or assumed forgetfulness and
ignorance. Thus it may be shown that the occasion of his
previous silence was a judicial proceeding at which he was
not questioned on the matter at all,^ or that his prior state-
ments were unintentionally omitted from the record of the
first trial ; ' that he actually forgot the facts,* or suppressed
them through fear,' or that his silence or concealment was in
good faith and prompted by correct motives.'
§ 351. Falsiis in uno falsus in oiuniMs. — The principle
illustrated by the above maxim permits the inference to be
drawn that because a witness is guilty' of deliberate perjury
Loomis V. New York Cent. & H. R. 2 Babcock v. People, 13 Colo. 515;
R. R. Co. (Mass., 1S93), 34 N. E. Rep. State v. Flint, 60 Vt. 304; Territory
82. Contra, Bell v. State (Tex., v. Clayton, 8 Mont. 1 ; Hyden v.
1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 363; Hobbs v. State, 20 S. W. Rep. 764: 31 Tex. Cr.
State (Ind. , 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 1019 ; Rep. 401 ; Bickford v. Menier, 9 N. Y.
Davenport v. MoKee, 98 N. C. 500; S. 775; Cowan v. Third Ave. Ry.
State V. Rowe, 98 N. C. 639; 4 S. E. Co., 9 N. Y. S. 610.
Rep. 506; Malonee v. DuflE, 72 Md. » United States v. Ford, 33 Fed.
283 ; 19 Atl. Rep, 708 ; State v. Mc- Rep. 861.
Kinney, 111 N. C. 683. "State v. Turner, 15 S. E. Rep.
1 State V. Thomason, 1 Jones (N. 602 ; 36 S. C. 534.
C), 274; Thompson V. State, 38 Ind. 5 People v. Chapleau, 131 N.Y.
89; Hotchkiss v. Gen. Ins. Co., 5 366 ; 24 N. E. Rep. 469.
Hun (N. Y.), 101 ; State v. Flint, 60 6 Bruce v. State, 31 S. W. Kep.
Vt. 304; 14 Atl. Rep. 178; Hewitt 603.
-y. Carey, 150 Mass, 445.
§ 351.J IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. 513
in one particular his testimony ma\' be wholly discredited by
the jury in other respects. The rule rejecting the evidence
of witnesses who had been convicted of an infamous crime is
largely based upon this principle, and the effect of the rule
may be, according to circumstances, either to demolish the
case of the party who is shown to have knowingly and de-
liberately perpetrated or connived at a falsehood, or its effect
may be restricted to the testimony of the single witness guilty
of perjury. It is therefore not error for the court to charge
that the jury may disbelieve all the evidence of any witness
whose evidence as to a material fact is impeached,' though if
a false statement is made not wilfully but through misappre-
hension, inadvertence, mistake or forgetfulness, the entire tes-
timony of the witness should not for this reason be disre-
garded.^ But if the jury believe that the witness has wilfully
and deliberately sworn falsely on any material point, they
have the right, and it may be their duty, to disregard his evi-
dence altogether,' except, so far as it has been corroborated
by other credible evidence or. by the facts and circumstances
which may be inferable from such evidence.^
iSeligman v. Rogers (Mo., 1893), dan v. State, 81 Ala. 20; IS. Rep.
21 S. W. Rep. 94; Clapp V. Bullard, 577; Church v. Chicago, etc. Co.
23 111. App. 609. (Mo., 1898), 33 S. W. Rep. 1056; Peo-
2Barney v. Dudley, 40 Kan. 347; pie v. O'Neill, 109 N Y. 251; 16
AVinter v. Cent. Iowa R. Co. (Iowa, N. E. Rep. 68 ; Dunn v. People, 29
1889), 45 N.' W. Rep. 737: Frazer v. N. Y. 529.
State, 19 S. W. Rep. 838 ; 56 Ark. * Lohr v. People, 132 111. 504 ; Reyn-
242; Spencer v. Dougherty, 23 HI. olds v. Greenbajm, 80 HI. 416; City
App. 899; Plyer v. ' German Am. of Sandwich v. Dolan, 31 N. E. Rep.
Ins. Co., 131 N. Y. 689; Murtaugh 416; 43 lil. App. 53; Hillman v.
V. Murphy. 30 111. App. 59. Schwenk, 68 Mich. 293. In The
^Winter V. Railroad Co., 80 Iowa, Santissiraa Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 339,
443; Seligman V. Rogers (Mo., 1893), the court, per Story, J., said: "If
21 S. W. Rep. 94 ; Cole v. L. S. & the circumstances respecting which
M. S. R. Co. (Mich., 1893), 54 N. W. testimony is discordant be immate-
Rep. 638 ; Morgenthau v. Walker, rial, and of such a nature that mis-
21 N. Y. S. 936 ; Judge v. Jordan, 81 takes may easily exist, and be ac-
lowa, 519 ; Speight v. State, 80 Ga. counted for in a manner consistent
512 ; Clapp v. Bullard, 23 111. App. with the utmost good faith and prob-
609; People v. Petmecky, 99 N. Y. ability, there is much reason for in-
415; Frazier v. State, 56 Ark. 242; dulging the belief that the discrep-
State V. Beaucleigh, 05 Mo. 490; ancies arise from the infirmity of the
Moett V. People, 85 N. Y. 373; human mind rather than from de-
Welke V. Welke, 63 Hun, 625 ; Jor- liberate error. But where the party
33
514 IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. [§ 352.
Whether or not a witness has been successfully impeached
so that his credibility has been destroyed is a question over
which the province of the jury or other tribunal having power
to determine the facts is exclusive. They are not bound by
any rule of law to disregard his evidence whollv, but may
take it into consideration for what it is worth, together with
all the evidence in the case; for though the witness may have
been impeached on some material points, his evidence on others
may be credible in itself or may be corroborated by other evi-
dence which is credible.'
§ 352. Evidence of the general reputation of an impeached
witness. — The direct impeachment of a witness by any of the
means which have been above explained creates an issue re-
specting his general character for truthfulness. Evidence to
BU[)port this, and to show that he is a person in whose testi-
mony the jury may have confidence, is therefore now relevant.'
But evidence of reputation is not relevant merely because
there is a contradiction between adverse witnesses," or because
the credibdity of a witness is shaken on his cross-examination,*
though its admission in such cases ma3'' not be reversible error.'
speaks to a fact in respect to which Strauss v. Abraham, 32 Fed. Rep.
he cannot be presumed liable to mis- 210; Plyer v. Ger. Am. Ins. Co., 121
take, as in relation to the country of N. Y. 689.
his birth, or his being in a vessel on 2 ciera v. State, 33 Ind. 418; Surles
a particular voyage, or living in a v. State (Ga., 1892), 15 S. E. Rep.
particular place, if the fact turn out 38; State v. Cherry, 03 N. C. 493;
otherwise it is extremely difificult to Louisville, N. A. etc. Co. v. Frawley,
exempt him from the charge of de- 110 Ind. 26; George v. Pitcher, 28
liberate falsehood, and the courts Gratt. (Va.) 299; GrifBth v. State, 26
under such cu-cumstances are bound, Tex. App. 157; State v. Jones. 29
upon principles of law, morality S. C. 201; 7 S. E. Rep. 296; Isler
and justice, to apply the maxim v, Dewey, 71 N. C. 14; Hadgo v.
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus." Gooden, 13 Ala. 718; Paine v. Til-
iWimer v. Smith (Oreg., 1893), den, 5 Washb. C. 0.554; Kennedy
30 Pac. Rep. 416; Surles v. State, 89 v. Upshur, 66 Tex. 443; Magee v.
Oa. 167; Lyles v. Com. (Va., 1892), People (111,, 1892), 28 N. E. Rep.
13 S. E. Rep. 803; Kerr v. Hodge, 39 1077.
III. App. 546; Cent. W. H. Co. v. sgaussy v. So. Flor. R. Co.,23 Fla.
Sargent, 40 111. App. 4:^8; People v. 337; Britt v. State, 21 Tox. App. 315;
Wallace, 89 Cal. 158; State v. Pat- Diffenderfer v. Scott (Ind., 1893), 33
rick (Mo., 1893), 17 S. W. Rep. 666; N. E. Rep. 87.
Howell Lumber Co. v. Campbell * Stevensoh v. Gunning, 64 Vt. 601.
(Neb., 1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 383; » Greene v. State (Tex., 1891), 12
James V. Mickej-, 26. S. a 270; S. W. Rep. 872.
§ 353.] IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. 51.5
A distinction has sometimes been made by which it has
been held that general evidence of the character of the wit-
ness for truthfulness is not relevant' if he was impeached
merely by showing that he had made contradictory state-
ments.' This distinction is repudiated by a majority of the de-
cisions which support the proposition that general evidence
of the character of the witness as a truthful person is always
admissible whenever any attempt, though it may have been
unsuccessful, has been made to impeach it;^ as, for example,
where another witness is asked what is his character for truth
and replies that it is good.'
§353. Privileges of witnesses — Questions disclosing a
pecuniary liability. — -The question of the privilege of the
witness from answering questions during his examination has
a twofold aspect, so that the immunity which the witness en-
joys may have for its object the protection either of the wit-
ness himself or the protection of some other person to whose
interests he may be related in a confidential capacity. In the
former class of cases, which we must now consider, the privi-
lege is personal to the witness and consequently maj' be waived
by him. It cannot be claimed by either party to the action
if the witness chooses to waive it. In the latter class, in which
are included confidential communications made to the witness
in his professional capacity, the privilege cannot be waived
by any one except the person who has made the communica-
tions.*
In England at the common law a considerable diversity of
opinion existed upon the point whether a witness could claim
the privilege of not answering a question which would tend
merely to expose him to a civil liability or action or a pecun-
iary loss.' In England and in some of the states the matter
was regulated by statute at an early date,^ while in other
states a precisely similar rule has been adopted by the courts,
1 Brown v. Mooers, 6 Gray, 451. Thornsberry (Tex., 1893), 17 S. W.
Of. HarriDgton v. Lincoln, 4 Gray, Eep. 521.
563, 565. ' Com. v. Ingraham, 7 Gray, 46.
2 Com. V. Ingraham, 7 Gray, 46; <See §§165-178.
People V. Ah Fat, 48 Cal. 61 ; Tipton 5 Lord Melville's Case, 29 How. St.
v.* State, 17 S. W. Rep. 1097 ; 80 Tex. Trials, 683.
App. 630; Galveston, etc. Co. v. «46 Geo, III.,ch. 37; 2 N. T. R. S.
405, g 71.
516 IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. [§ 354.
SO that it is now the general rule that no witness is privileged
from a,nswering any relevant question solely for the reason
that his answer may tend to render him liable to a civil liabilit}'
or open the door for the prosecution of a civil action against
him.'
§ 354. Questions tending to disgrace the witness.— In
regard to those questions which merely tend to disgrace the
witness in the eyes of those who know him, an important dis-
tinction is made by the authorities founded on the nature and
relevancy of the fact which is to be elicited.^ Where the
question is put on the direct examination, with the sole object
of obtaining evidence of some fact directly relevant, it is not
only unjust but absurd to close the mouth of the witness,
where the life, the liberty or the most valuable rights of others
may depend upon his answer, solely because that answer may
disgrace him. The. answer which he may give, while it may
disgrace him, will not render him liable to punishment for a
crime nor subject him to the danger of a civil suit. On the
other hand, it may be absolutely necessary in ascertaining the
guilt or innocence of a prisoner accused of some heinous
crime or to determine pecuniary interests of paramount im-
portance.' So a witness will be compelled to give evidence,
however much it may humiliate, disgrace or degrade him, to
any transaction which forms a part of the matter which is in
issue.* But where questions tending to disgrace a witness are
asked in cross-examining a witness different principles apply.
To prevent the multiplication of issues it is not allowable, as
we have explained, to interrogate on cross-examination upon
wholly irrelevant matters merely for the purpose of subse-
quently contradicting the witness. Accordingl}'^, if the dis-
1 Williams V. Butcher, 22 Neb. 683; 2 1 Greenl. on Ev., g 454; Phil. &
37 N. W. EeR. 586; Cox v. Hill, 3 Am. on Ev., pp. 917, 918.
Ohio St. 411; Clark v. Zeigler, 85 'People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 250-
Ala. 154; Jones v. Lanier, 8 Dev. 254; Cundell v. Pratt, 1 M. & Malk.
(S. C.) L. 480; Durfee v. Knowles, 108. See Phil. & Am. on Ev., pp. 917,
50 Hun, 601; 2 N. Y. S. 466; Taney 918; 2 Phil. Ev. 422.
V. Kemp, 4 H. & J. 348; Moline * Ex parte Boscowitz, 84 Ala. 463;
Wagon Co. v. Preston, 35 111. App. 4 S. Rep. 279 ; Johnston Hard. Co. v.
358; Ward v. Sharp, 15 Vt. 115. Muller, 73 Mich. 3C5. See cases in
Contra, Benjamin v. Hathaway, 3 note 3.
Conn. 538.
§ 354.] IMPEACHMENT OP WITNESSES. 517
gracing question is asked for tbat purpose it may be excluded
because it is irrelevant. But objections based on irrelevancy
are to be taken by the parties, not by the Vi'itness, and mere
irrelevancy alone will not, in strictness of language, confer any
personal privilege as such upon a witness.
It is not possible to lay down any general rule as to what
questions are relevant on a cross-examination. While the matter
is largely in the discretion of the court it is clear that this
discretion should be exercised in protecting a witness from
needless insult and from impertinent questions designed to
surprise him and to cause him to lose his temper.^ The pres-
ent tendency is to regard all facts as relev'ant which will
enable the jurors to decide to what extent the testimony of
the witness can be relied upon, and among such facts are his
present or previous moral character and his previous conduct
and life, whether irreproachable or the reverse. Accordingly
a witness raaj' be asked, with a view to show his character for
truthfulness, as to specific facts not too remote in time which
may tend to disgrace him, and counsel will be bound by his
answers.^
In the absence of a statute permitting the question, the
witness cannot be asked on cross-examination if he has been
convicted of or imprisoned for a crime. Here no question of
privilege arises. It is for the party or the court, of its own
motion, to interpose, since the conviction or imprisonment is
usually of record, and a complete transcript of the record is
the best and only competent evidence of the fact of convic-
tion.' So while the fact that a prosecuting witness in a trial
1 Com. V. Shaw, 4 Cush. 593; Com. Shore, etc. Co. (Mich., 1893), 54 N.
V. Sacket, 32 Pick. 894 f Smith v. W. Rep. 638; Ex parte Boscowitz,
Castles, 1 Gray, 108. 84 Ala. 434; People v. Casey, 73 N.
2 Best, Ev., § 546 ; Clayton v. State Y. 383 ; Ryan v. People, 79 N. Y.
(Tex., 1893), 33 S. W. Rep. 404; At- 594; Carroll v. State (Tex., 1893), 24
torney-General v. Hitchcock, 1 Ex. S. W. Rep. 100. Cf. contra, State v.
103; Reg. v. Burke, 8 Cox, 44; Peo- Houx, 109 Mo. 654.
pie V. Hite (Utah, 1893), 33 Pac. schambless v. State (Tex., 1894),
Rep. 254; Roberts v. Com. (Ky., 24 S. W. Rep. 899; Rex v. Lewis, 4
1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 367 ; State v. Esp. 235 ; Newcomb v. Griswold, 34
Miller, 13 S. W. Rep. 833; 100 Mo. N. Y. 398; Spiegel v. Hays, 118 id.
606; State v. Taylor (Me., 1898), 33 661; State v. Minor (Mo., 1S93), 22
S. W. Rep. 806; Ford v. State (Ga., S. W. Rep. 1085; State v. Alexis
1898), 17 8. E. Rep. 667; Cole v. Lake (La., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 394; Daggett
518
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES.
[§ 354.
for rape or seduction had committed adultery with other
men is not directly relevant upon the guilt or innocence of
the prisoner, questions respecting such intimacy may be asked
her if intended solely to impeach her testimony'- that she was
previously chaste.^
Every man's family relations, his domicile, his business and
his social connections, his avocation and his manner of living,
are, to a certain extent, within his own power of selection. If
then he voluntarily associates with persons who are disrepu-
table, or engages in practices or in occupations which are dis-
graceful or vicious, though not perhaps criminal, he maj'^, so
far as these facts bear upon his truthfulness, be compelled to
answer all interrogatories.^ So a witness may be asked on
V. Sims, 79 Ga. 353; State v. Farmer,
84 Me. 436. Of. contra. State v.
Taylor (Mo., 1893), 24 S. W. Rep.
449; People v. Crowley (Cal., 1893),
35 Pac. Rep. 84. It is very improper
for counsel to accuse the witness of
perjury by implication by asking
him if he knows the penalty for
that crime. People v. O'Brien
(Mich., 1893), 56 N. W. Rep. 73.
Sometimes it is provided by statute
that a witness may be asked on his
cross-examination if he was ever
convicted of a crime. Spiegel v.
Hays, 118 N. Y. 660: People v. Rod-
rigo, 69 Cal. 601 ; State v. Adamson,
43 Minn. 196; State v. McGuire, 15
R. I. 23; State v. Miller, 100 Mo.
106 ; Handlin's Estate v. Law, 34 111.
App. 84; Helm v. State, 67 Miss.
562 ; Com. v. Morgan, 107 Mass. 805 ;
State V. O'Brien (Iowa, 1891), 46
N. W. Rep. 861; State v. Merriman
(S. C, 1891), 13 S. E. Rep. 619; State
V. Pefferle, 36 Kan. 90. If he denies
that he was ever convicted of a
crime, he may be contradicted by
the record of his conviction. State
V. McGuire, 15 R. I. 23 ; People v.
Carolan, 71 Cal. 195 ; State v. Wise,
33 S. C. 582 ; Helwig v. Laschcowitz,
83 Mich. 619; Sisson v. Yost, 58
Hun, 609; State v. Sauer, 43 Minn.
258. See, also, cases supra. These
statutes are strictly construed. Thus,
a «[uestion, "'Were you ever con-
convicted of crime?" is improper
under a statute allowing the witness
to be interrogated as to his previous
" conviction of felony.'' Hanners v.
McClelland, 74 Iowa, 318. Where a
statute permits a " conviction of any
crime" to be shown, any crime,
whether a felony or misdemeanor,
may be shown. Helm v. State, 67
Miss. 563; State v. Sauer, 42 Minn.
258. See cases cited under §§ 318,
319. To rebut the presumption raised
by proof of the conviction of the
witness, he may on his redirect
examination, testify to his inno-
cence of crime. Walkoff v. Tefft,
13 N. Y. S. 464. And where it ap-
pears that he was pardoned, the rea-
sons for granting the pardon and the
celerity with which it was granted
may also be shown. Sisson v. Yost,
58 Hun, 609; 12 N. Y. S. 373.
1 Taylor, Ev., § 1393, n. ; People
V. Harrison, 93 Mich. 594; Com. v.
Regan, 105 Mass. 593. Contra, State
V. Patterson, 74 N. C. 157.
2 Grimes v. Connell, 33 Neb. 187;
People v. Tiley, 84 Cal. 651.
§ 354a.J mPKACHMENT OF WITNESSES. 519
cross-examination if she keeps a house of ill-fame; ' if she is a
prostitute ^ or an habitual user of opium;' whether he is a
volunteer witness;* if he has attempted to bribe another wit-
ness,^ or whether he had not fled to escape criminal prosecu-
tion.* But a witness who is also a party defendant cannot be
asked on his cross-examination if he has disposed of his prop-
erty with the view of escaping an adverse judgment in that
case.' Nor can a witness be asked if he was impeached as a
witness itt another cause.'
The asking of incriminating or disgracing questions is a
matter largel}' in the discretion of the court," and where no ma-
terial injury is thereby done to either party, the refusal of the
court to order such a question stricken out will not be reversi-
ble error. If, however, counsel persists in asking a material
witness, whose credit is otherwise unimpeached, insulting and
disgracing irrelevant questions not tending to show that the
witness was to be disbelieved, and follows this up by attempt-
ing to contradict him by offering and reading from inadmissible
writings, stating to the jury that the witness had contradicted
himself, a conviction of murder will be set aside because of
the unfair and prejudicial effect of such a course of action on
the minds of the jurors.^"
§ 354:a. Questions tending to expose witness to a criminal
charge. — A witness cannot be compelled to answer any ques-
tion where it is reasonable to suppose that his answer will
tend to incriminate him or render him subject to punishment
for crime." It is immaterial whether the question has been
1 State V. Hack (Mo., 1893), 23 S. 9 Com. v. McDonald, 110 Mass. 545.
W. Rep. 1089. 10 People v. Carr, 64 Mich. 702; 31
2 State V. Coella, 5 Wash. 99. N. W. Rep. 509. Cf. Com. v. Shaw,
3 People V. Webster, 68 Hun, 11, 4 Cush. 598.
* Wabash, etc. Co. V. Ferris (Ind., n Worthington v. Scribner, 109
1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 112. Mass. 487; Stevens v. State, 33 Pac.
5 State V. Hack, supra. Cf. Com. Rep. 350 ; 50 Kan. 712 ; Friess v. N. Y.
V. Mason, 105 Mass. 163. Cent. & H. R. R., 22 N. Y. S. 104 ; 67
6 State V. Duncan (Wash., 1893), 35 Hun, 205; Taylor y. Mclrvin, 94 111.
Pac. Rep. 117; Copp v. HoUins, 9 N. 488; Minter v. People, 139 111. 363;
Y. S. 57. State v. Hardware Co., 109 Mo. 118;
'French v. JSVilkinson, 93 Mich. Yard's Appeal, 148 Pa. St. 509; Ex
332; 53 N. W. Rep. 530. parte Boscowitz, 84 Ala. 483; State
'Cockrill V. Hall, 76 Cal. 193; 18 v. Coella, 3 Wash. St. 99; Com. v.
Pac. Rep. 818, Trider, 148 Mass. 180; Minter v, Peo-
520
IMPEACnMENT OF WITNESSES.
[§ 354ffl.
partiall}'^ answered before he objects or is wholly' unanswered;'
for if the answer "forms but one link in the chain of testi-
mony which would convict him," he need not answer at all.^
If the witness will swear that he believes that to answer
would incriminate him, he need not show in detail how that
result would be produced, for to compel him to do this would
be to destroy the protection which he enjoys.' If he choose
to answer he may do so, but the court must inform him that
he need not;* and it is for the judge to determine as a matter
of law whether any possible answer that the witness may
give will tend to incriminate him directly, or indirectly by fur-
nishing a missing link in the chain of proof.' If from all
pie, 29 N. E. Rep. 45; 39 111. App.
438; Temple v. Com., 75 Va. 892;
Southard v. Rexford, 6 Cowen, 254.
In an early case it was held that an
incriminating reply wrongfully ex-
torted from the witness could not
subsequently be used against bira.
Reg. V. Garbott, 1 Denio, C. C. 236 ;
Emery Cases, 107 Mass. 180. A de-
fendant in chancery will not be com-
pelled to answer interrogatories con-
tained in a bill of discovery which
will tend to incriminate hini or sub-
ject him to punishment. Mclntire
V. Manoius, 16 Johns. 593; Wigram
on Discovery, pp. 61, 150, 195; Story's
Eq. Pleading, g§ 534, 576, 577, 593-
598. So also, both in equity and at
law, a witness will not be compelled
to answer questions where his an-
swer may subject him to a forfeit-
ure of his estate. 1 Greenl. Ev.,
S 453 ; Story's Eq. Plead., §§ 607, 846 ;
Respublioa v. Cribbs, 3 Yeates, 429.
1 The matter is largely in the dis-
cretion of the court. Mayo v. Mayo,
119 Mass. 290; 1 Whart. Ev., §§ 558-
540. Only the incriminating portion
of the testimony should be stricken
out where the witness has answered.
State V. Tall, 43 Minn. 273.
2 1 Greenl. Ev., § 451. In 1 Bnrr's
Trial, 244, the court by Marshall,
C. J., said : " Many links frequently
compose that chain of testimony
necessary to convict an individual of
a crime. It appears to be the true
sense of the rule that no witness is
compellable to furnish any one of
them against himself. It is certainly
not only a possible but a probable
case, that a witness by disclosing a
single fact may complete the testi-
mony against himself and to every
effectual purpose accuse himself en-
tirely, as he would by stating every
circumstance which would be re-
quired for his conviction."
3 People V. Mather, 4 Wend. 239,
253, 253, 254 ; In re Bellinger, 8 Wend.
595; Friess v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R.
Co., 67 Hun, 205. The actual inno-
cence of the witness is immaterial if
his answer would tend to convict
him of a crime. Adams v. Lloyd, 4
Jur. (N. S.) 590, If, having been in-
structed as to his rights, the witness
answers an incriminating question,
he may be compelled to go into
every detail of the inculpatory cir-
cumstances. Foster v. Pierce, 11
Cush. 437, 439; Com. v. Pratt, 126
Mass. 463 ; State v. Van Winkle, 80
Iowa, 15; Williams v. State (Ala.,
1893), 13 S. Rep. 333/
* Close v. Olney, 1 Denio, 319.
5 See People v. Mather, 4 Wend.
253-354; State v. Thaden, 43 Minn.
§ Soia.]
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES.
521
the circumstances and from the character of the answer which
is required it seems clear that there is no reasonable ground
for the supposition that the answer will tend to incriminate
him, the witness should be compelled to answer, though he
shall swear that he believes his answer will incriminate him.'
If the danger to the witness is apparent he may be allowed to
use a large discretion in refusing to answer.^
A defendant in a criminal trial who testifies voluntarily in
his own behalf cannot refuse to answer incriminating ques-
tions on his cross-examination, for by denying his guilt on the
stand he will (except in those states where the cross-examina-
tion is limited by statute to the matters gone into on the direct
examination)' by implication be deemed to have waived his
privilege as a witness so far as questions relevant to his guilt
or to his credibility are concerned.''
The privilege of refusing to answer incriminating questions
is personal to the witness. Neither party can object to the
witness answering them if he desires todoso.^ The jury
253; state v. Tall, 43 id. 273; Com. v.
Bell, 145 Pa. St, 874. A person who
waives his privilege and testifies be-
fore the grand jury cannot, when he
is indicted with others for the crime,
refuse to testify on the trial of a co-
defendant because his answer may
criminate him. State v. Van Winkle,
45 N. W. Rep. 388.
'Forbes v. Willard, 37 How. Pi-.
193; Lathropv. Roberts, 16 Colo. 250.
2 Williams v. Dickinson, 28 Fla.
90; Chamberlain v. Wilson, 13 Vt.
491 ; Minter v. People, 29 N. E. Rep.
45; 39111. App. 438.
'State V. Chamberlain, 89 Mo. 129.
^McClain v. People, 1 Atl. Rep. 45;
110 Pa. St. 263; Sullivan v. People,
114 111. 24; State v. Sanders, 106 Mo,
188; State v. Uhrig, 106 Mo. 267;
Com. V. Mullern, 97 Mass. 545 ; Rains
V. State, 88 Ala. 91 ; Andrews v.
Frye, 104 Mass. 234 ; State v. Ober,
52 N. H. 459 ; Connors v. People, 50
N. Y. 240; State v. Allen, 107 N. C.
105; Spies v. People, 122 111, 235;
State V. Withan, 72 Me. 531 ; People
V. Tice, 131 N. Y. 651; Com. v.
Damon, 136 Mass. 441 ; People v.
Oyer & Terminer, 83 N. Y. 436 , Com.
V. Morgan, 107 Mass. 199; Com. v
Nichols, 114 id. 285; State v. Went-
worth, 65 Me. 234 ; Stover v. People,
56 N. Y. 315; Roddy m. Finnegan,
48 Md. 490.
5 Williams v. Dickinson, 28 Fla. 90:
State V. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234;
Thomas v. Newton, 1 M. & M. 48;
Taylor v. State (Ga., 1890), 10 S, E.
Rep. 443 ; People v. league, 83 Mich.
22; Com. v. Gould (Mass., 1893), 33
N. E. Rep. 656 : Brown v. State {Tex ,
1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 924; Cliff ton v.
Granger (Iowa, 1893), 53 N. W. Rep.
316; People v. Teagne, 11 S. E. Rep.
665 ; 106 N. C. 576 ; Com v. Shaw, 4
Cush. (Mass.) 594; Lathrop v. Rob-
erts, 16 Colo. 250. Where the ac-
cused has voluntarily testified to his
age, he may properly be required to
stand up so that the jury may ob-
serve his personal appearance. Will-
522 IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. [§ 3545.
should be advised that no inference that the witness is a crim-
inal should be drawn from his refusal to answer,^ and in any
case if, after he has claimed his privilege, he is forced to answer,
the information given cannot afterwards be used against him,^
or by either party in the pending action.'' Where the witness,
because he has been acquitted,^ or by lapse of time, is no longer
liable to a prosecution, he is not privileged, and may be
compelled to answer.^
§ 354:b. Bias and prejudice of the witness. — These words,
though commonly employed together, are not synonymous.
Prejudice, in strictness of language, means a prejudgment;
any judgment or opinion formed beforehand, and does not,
in its legal acceptation, necessarily imply any ill-will or en-
mity towards a person.* But a person whose mind is biased,
whether he be a witness or a juror, is one who entertains
such a degree of personal dislike towards one party, or such
an inclination, affection or prepossession towards the other,
that he is utterly incapable of acting or speaking indiffer-
erktly and impartially as to a transaction in which either is
concerned.' A man who is prejudiced, who has made up his
iams V. State (Ala., 18^3), 13 S. Rep. before he can claim to be privileged
333. from answering the incriminating
1 State V. Bartlett, 55 Me. 200; questions. In re Eckstein, 24 Atl.
Devries v. Phillips, 63 N. C. 53. It Rep. 63; 8 W. N. C. 59; 10 Pa. Co.
is submitted that any rule, whether Ct. R. 41.
statutory or formulated by judicial * Lathrop v. Roberts, 16 Colo. 250.
legislation, which forbids a juror ^Ex parte Boscowitz, 84 Ala. 434:
from drawing the perfectly logical People v. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 74; So.
and fair conclusion that a witness is Rail. N. Co. v. Russell (Ga., 1S93), 18
a criminal because he claims the S. E. Rep. 40. Contra, McFadden v.
privilege of refusing to answer in- Reynolds, (Pa., 1888), 11 Atl. Rep.
criminating questions, would be nu- 638. He may also be compelled to
gatory. answer incriminating questions
2 So by statute. See Ex parte Bus- where it is expressly provicted by
kett, 106 Mo. 602; 17 S. W. Rep. 753; statute that such testimony shall in
United States v. Smith, 47 Fed. Rep. no case be used against him. Ex
501. parte Buskett, 17 S. W. Rep. 753;
3 Reg V. Kinglake, 23 L. T. (N. S.) 108 Mo. 602.
335. A witness who is under indict- '•Anderson's Law Diet., " Preju-
ment for a crime which is the sub- dice;" Willis v. State, 12 Ga. 448;
ject of a legislative investigation Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 297.
cannot for that reason refuse to at- 'In Evermati v. Hyman (Ind.,
tend or to be sworn as a witness. 1892), 28 N. E. Rep. 1022, bias is de-
He must wait until he is questioned fined as " A leaning of the mind,
§ 3545.] IMrEAOHMENT Of WITJSE83ES. 523
mind and formed an opinion as to the justice of the cause, is
necessarily biased towards that party whose case he believes
is just. But a witness may be biased by his interest or by
the ties of friendship or affection without being prejudiced,
i. e., without having any definite opinion as to the merits of
the case. ,
The bias of a witness so far as it affects the credibility of
his testimony ,is not collateral and may always be shown
either by his own statements on his examination or by the
independent evidence of others. Thus, as has been already
pointed out, a party may show that his own witness has un-
expectedly proved hostile to him and may emphasize such
hostility or bias by showing by another witness that the
biased witness was formerly favorably inclined towards him.*
The bias of the witness may also be shown on his cross-exam-
ination by interrogating him as to his sympathy or hostility
towards either of the parties or as to his interest in the sub-
ject-matter.^ Though the possession of an actual pecuniary
interest is generally no longer an objection to the competency
of a witness, it may still be shown as a fact from which the
jury may infer that the witness was biased. And the same
principle is recognized in the case of an existing relationship
between the witness and a party to the action.. So the jury
may with propriety employ great caution in weighing the
testimony of witnesses who are near relatives of the accused
in a criminal trial when they testify in his behalf,' unless the
inference of bias is rebutted by the party who calls the wit-
propensity towards the object, not Cal. 173; Bates v. HoUaday, 31 Mo.
leaving the mind indifferent; incli- App. 163 (bribery of witness). If
nation, prepossession, bent.'' on being questioned witness denies
' See ante, % 348. that he is biased, the fact may then
2 See ante, % 340. In proving bias be shown by other witnesses. State
for the purpose not of direct contra- v. McFarlain, 41 La. Ann. 686;
diction but of discrediting the wit- Hamilton v. Man, Ry. Co., 9 N. Y.
ness, it is the general rule that a S. 313; Bennett v. State, 28 Tex.
foundation must be laid and the at- App. 339.
tention of the witness called to the ^ United States v. Eord, 33 Fed.
time and place of the declarations Rep. 861 ; State v. Byers, 100 N. C.
showing bias. Queen's Case, 2 B. & 513; 6 S. C. R. 420; Simpson v. State,
B. 384, 311 ; Edwards v. Sullivan, 8 78 Ga. 91 ; Staser v. Hogan, 120 Ind.
Ired. (N, C.) 303 ; Crumpton v. State, 307.
53 Ark. 273; Baker v. Joseph, 10
524 IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES. [§ 3545.
ness proving that the witness and he have been on bad terras.'
Thp bias of the witness may have arisen because of promises
or threats made or bribes offered by one of the litigants.
Though the witness was thus tampered with his testimony is
still admissible, and while evidence of the attempt to bribe is
admissible it is for the jury to determine if either party
was implicated and what effect, if any, the threats or bribery
may have had upon the credibility of the testimony of the
witness.^
1 Clapp V. Wilson, 5 Denio (N. Y.), « Hitchcock v. Moore, 70 Mich. 112 ;
285. 37 N. W. Rep. 91 4.
CHAPTER XXY.
AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS,
355.
356.
357.
359.
Affidavits and depositions de-
fined and distinguished.
Parties to affidavits.
Formal requisites of affida-
vits.
Language of the affidavit.
Definition and character of
depositions.
§ 360. Mode of procuring deposi-
tions.
361. Statutes construed — The cer-
tificate.
368. Objections to depositions.
363. Use of depositions as evidenca
364. Equitable bills to perpetuate
testimony.
§ 355. AffldaTits and depositions defined and distin-
guished.— Written evidence which is verified b}' an oath is
sometimes loosely classified under the general term "deposi-
tion." In view of the different uses to which affidavits and
depositions may be put, it is important to distinguish clearly
between them. A deposition usually consists of answers to
questions oral or written, and the opposite party i? entitled to
notice and must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the
deponent.^ An affidavit, on the other hand, is commonly vol-
untary,^ ex parte, and may be and usually is taken without no-
tice to the adverse party.' So the uses to which an affidavit
may be put are very different from a deposition. Thus, an
affidavit is of utility in matters which are collateral or initia-
tory to the subject of the trial, but which prepare for it or
facilitate its progress; as, for example, where some extraor-
dinary remed}'^, as an attachment^ or an injunction, is sought,
or where a commission is required for the purpose of procur-
ing the testimony of an absent witness,' or where it is desired
' See post, g 359 et seq.
2 Dudley V. McCord, 65 Iowa, 671.
' " An affidavit is simply a declara-
tion, on oath, in vyriting, aworn to
by the declarant before a person
who has authority to administer
oaths." Harris v. Lester, 80 111. 311;
Woods V. State (Ind., 1993), 33 N. E.
Rep. 903; State v. Hennings (S. D„
1898), 54 N. W. Eep. 537 ; Stimpson
V. Brooks, 3 Blatch. 436; Atchison
V. Bartholow, 4 Kan. 134; State v.
Dayton, 25 N. J. L. 54.
* Wirt V. Dinan, 44 N. Y. App. 583.
8 " Questions which do not involve
the matter in controversy, but mat-
526
AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS.
[§ 356.
to open a default to obtain a continuance^ or a new trial,* or
on a motion for judgment on a nonsuit.' The}' are no part of
the record unless they are made so, and serve mainly to verif}'
facts which are not themselves matter of record. Except so
far as they may constitute admissions of the affiant, affida-
vits are not evidence of the material facts in issue.*
§ 356. Parties to affidavits. — An affidavit should be made
by a party to the action, and it is immaterial whether he is a
party to the record if he is a party in interest;' though, if it
be shown that the party is disabled by illness, or that he is
out of the jurisdiction, an affidavit by his counsel may be ad-
missible." But the reason that the affidavit is not made by
the party ,^ and the authority of the attorney to act for him,
must appear on the face of the affidavit.^ In the absence of
ter which is auxiliary to the trial,
which facilitates the preparation for
it, often depend on the oath of the
party. An afifidavit to the material-
ity of a witness, for the purpose of
obtaining a continuance or a com-
mission to take his deposition, or an
affidavit of his inability to attend, is
usually made by the party and re-
ceived without objection. So affi-
davits in support of a new trial are
often received." Taylor v. Biggs, 1
Pet. (U. S.) 591.
1 Freeport v. Penrod, 53 N. W. Rep.
74; 35 Neb. 373; Dawson v. Coston
(Colo., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 189; Keith
V. Knoche, 43 111. App. 161.
2 Atkinson v. Saltman (Ind., 1893),
29 N. E. Rep. 435.
3 Ames V. Merriam, 9 Wend. (N. Y.)
498. Supplemental affidavits are
those which contain averments upon
the same subject as another prior
affidavit and which are designed to
remedy some defect la it. Callan v,
Lukens, 89 Pa. St. 186; Fritz v.
Hathaway, 19 Atl. Rep. 1011 ; 26 W.
N. C. 373.
* Lewis V. Bacon, 8 Hen. & M.
(Va.) 89 ; Armstrong v. Boylan, 4 N.
J. L. 84; Patterson v. Insurance Co.,
8 Har. & J. (Md.) 71 ; Nat. S. S. Co.
V. Tugman, 143 U. S. 38: Asbach v.
Chicago, etc. Co. (Iowa, 1898), 53 N.
W. Rep. 90 ; Ohio, etc. Co. v. Levy
(Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 815.
< Feeley v. Steinmetz, 23 Pa. St.
437; Hunter v. Riley, 36 Pa. St. 509;
Miller v. Hooker, 2 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
124.
6 Spencer v. Bell, 109 N. C. 39;
Gazam v. Royce, 78 Ga. 512. Con-
viction of an infamous crime ren-
ders a person incompetent to make
an affidavit at common law. Peo-
ple v. Robinson, 36 How. Pr. 90;
Webster v. Mann, 56 Tex. 119. See
nnie, §319. Where an affidavit is
made by a person who is incarcer-
ated in an insane asylum, the jurat
must show the place where it was
made and all the surrounding cir-
cumstances in order that the mental
condition of the affiant may be in-
quired into. Spittle v. Walton, L R.
11 Eq. 420.
'Pack V. Geofroy, 19 N. Y. S. 583;
Blake Crusher Co. v. Ward, 1 Am.
L. T. R. 433; Jackson v. Wood-
worth, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 136; City v.
Devine, 1 W. N. C. (Pa.) 358.
8 Adams v. Kellogg, 68 Mich. 105;
i 357.]
AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS.
m
statute an aflBclavit may be sworn to before any official au-
thorized to administer oaths.^ "When, however, a statute
authorizes certain officials to axlminister oaths, an affidavit
not sworn to before that official is invalid and may be disre-
garded.^
As a general rule affidavits which are sworn to before the
attorney of the party are not competent though the attorney
may be otherwise authorized as a notar}^ to take affidavits.'
But this rule is not without exceptions;* and generally an
affidavit may be taken by the partner of the attorney if the
latter is not also the attorney of the party.'
§ 357. Formal requisites of affidavits. — The affidavits
should bo accurately entitled,* though as a general rule, when
the affidavit can be otherwise identified, a mistake in this re-
spect or the absence of a caption or a title will be disregarded.'
If the venue is stated in the affidavit ^ it is immaterial that it
does not appear appended to the signature of the notary;' for
Weatherwax V. Paine, 3 Mich. .^55;
Rutledge v. Stribling, 26 111. App.
453; Willis v. Lyman, 23 Tex. 268;
Wallace v. Bj'rne, 17 La. Ann. 8.
Contra, Simpson v. McCarthy, 78
Cal. 175. The aflSdavit of a corpo-
ration should be made by its chief
official having a competent knowl-
edge of tlie facts. Ex parte Ser-
geant, 17 Vt. 435.
1 Casaidy v. Meyera, 64 Miss. 510 ;
Young V. "Rollins, 78 N. C. 485.
2 Haight V. Proprietors, 4 Wash.
C, C. 601, 606 ; Irving v. Edrington,
41 La. Ann. 671; United States v.
Bailey, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 238; Stanton v.
Ellis, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 319; Benedict
v. Hall, 76 N. C. 113; Love v. Mc-
Alister, 42 Ark. 183 ; Roberts v. Rail-
road Co., 1 Brew. (Pa.) 538.
sPullen V. Pullen (N. J,, 1889), 17
Atl. Rep. 310; Taylor v. Hatch, 12
Johns. 340 ; Toorle v. Smith, 34 Kan.
27; Swe-iringen v. Hawser, 37 Kan.
1'26; Vary v. Godfrey, 6 Cow. 587;
Willard v. Judd, 15 Johns. 531;
Hammond v. Freeman, 9 Ark. 63,
Of. Linck v. Litchfield (111., 1893), 31
N. E. Rep. 133.
iReavis v. Cowell, 56 Cal. 588;
Young V. Young, 18 Minn. 90 ; Ry-
burn V. Moore, 73 Tex. 85; Daws v.
Glasgow, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 171.
5 Northumberland v. Todd, L. R.
7 Ch. Div. 777.
6 Baxter v. Seaman, 1 How. (N. Y.)
51 : Humphrey v. Caude, 3 Cow. (N.
Y.) 509.
'HM-ris v. Lester, 80 111. 307;
Beebe v. Morrell, 76 Mich. 114;
Maury v. Van Arnum, 1 Hill (N, Y.),
370; Hawley v. Donnelly, 8 Paige
(N. Y.), 415 ; Minzenheimer v. Heinze,
74 Tex. 254.
8 Thompson v. Burhans, 61 N. Y.
52; Cook v. Staats, 18 Barb. (N. Y.)
407.
9 Smith V. Runnells, 94 Mich. 617;
State v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 17 Nev.
239. But the venue must appeal
somewhere on the face of the afiSda-
vit. PeoplB V. Canvassers, 30 N, Y.
S. 329.
528
AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS.
[§ 357.
thouf^h without a venue stated the affidavit is void as such,*
yet in a prosecution for perjury, committed in swearing to
the affidavit, the absence of the venue is immaterial, as time
and place may be shown orally.^ A signature is indispensable
to the validity of the affidavit only when it is required b^r
statute or by a rule of court;' but an unsigned affidavit will
sustain a prosecution for perjur}'-, the gist of the crime being
th& false swearing.* The jurat must state that it was sworn
to or affirmed before the proper official,^ and it must gener-
ally be subscribed by him," and should be authenticated by
his official seal,' unless it is to be used in the county in which
he resides.'
But generally the courts are disposed to exercise a wise dis-
cretion in allowing amendments of technical defects,' and
sometimes of those which are material as well.*"
iCook V. Staats, 18 Barb. (N. Y.)
407; Lane v. Morse, 6 How. (N. Y.)
394.
SReavia v. Cowell, 56 Cal. 558;
Young V. Young, 18 Minn. 90; Par-
ker V. Baker, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 438.
SHafE V. Spicer, 3 Paige (N. Y.),
190; Norton v. Hauge, 47 Minn. 405;
Shelton v. Berry, 19 Tex. 154; Al-
ford V. McCormao, 90 N. C. 151;
Gill V. Ward, 33 Ark. 16 ; Bates v.
Eobinson, 8 Iowa, 318; Hargadine
V. Van Horn, 73 Mo. 370; Nave v.
Ritter, 41 Ind. 301.
* See cases in last note.
5 State V. Green, 15 N. J. L. 88;
Palmer v. McCarthy (Colo. , 1893), 31
Pac. Rep. 341 ; Ladow v. Groom, 1
Denio (N. Y.), 439 ; Morris v. State,
2 Tex. App. 503.
8 Cantwell v. State, 27 Ind. 505 ;
McDermaid v. Russell, 41 111. 490;
State V. Richardson, 34 Minn. 118;
Davis V.Rich, 3 How. (N. Y.)86;
State V. Green, 15 N. J. Law, 88.
That the official omits to state his
official title is immaterial. People
V. Vi^n Rensselaer, 6 Wen^. (N. Y.)
543; Hunter v. Leconte, 6 Cow. (N.
Y.)728.
7 Chase v. Street, 10 Iowa, 593.
8 Stout V. Slattery, 13 111. 162;
Clemens v. Bullen (Mass., 1893), 34
N. E. Rep. 173 ; Mountjoy v. State,
78 Ind. 173. Of. Coward v. Dillin-
ger, 56 Md. 59. " If an oath was
administered by a proper officer the
law was satisfied, and the mere
omission of a clerk to put bis name
to an act which was done through
him as an instrument should not
prejudice an innocent party." The
court, in Kruse v. Wilson, 79 111.
233.
9 Rosenberg v. Claflin (Ala., 1893),
10 S. Rep. 531 ; Stacy v. Farnham, 3
How. (N. Y.) 36; Watts v. Womack,
44 Ala. 605.
w Cutler V. Rathbone, 1 Hill, 205
(affidavit of hearsay); Hardin v.
Lee, 51 Mo, 241 ; Kruse v. Wilson,
79 111. 233; Jones v. Slate Co., 16
How. (N. Y.) 129; Salmon v. Mills,
4 U. S. App. 101 ; 1 C. C. A. 278.
Cf. Freer v. White (Mich., 1893), 51
N, W. Rep. 807; Brookmire v.. Rosa
(Neb., 1890), 51 N. W. Rop. 840;
Sheldon v. Kivett, 110 N. C. 408.
That an affidavit may be filed or a
jurat added nunc pro tunc, see Will-
§ 358.]
AFFIDAYITS AND DEPOSITIONS.
529
§ 358. Language of the affidavit.— The terms ia which
the aflSdavit is expressed must be certain, positive and unam-
biguous.^ The affiant must swear to a definite thing, though
an aflSdavit will not be construed in a technical spirit if in the
main it substantiates the party's case.^ Still it may be said
that where an affidavit is required to be made by statute the
requirements of the statute must be complied with, and in such
a case a strict adherence to the language of the statute is the
only safe course for the party to pursue in order to render the
affidavit valid.' Scandalous matter may vitiate an affidavit,*
but the fact that an aflldavit is a translation,' or that it was
sworn to in a foreign language which was not understood by
the affiant, will not render it invalid, provided it was properly
translated to him.^ Where a statute permits the affiant to
amend his affidavit he may amend at any time. He need not
wait until it is pronounced defective.'
iams V. Stevenson, 103 Ind. 243.
" Oral evidence given on aflSdavit
must be confined to such facts as
the witneas is able of his own knowl-
edge to prove except on interlocu-
tory* motions, on which statements
as to his belief and the grounds
thereof may be admitted. The costs
of every affidavit unnecessarily set-
ting forth matters of hearsay or ar-
gumentative matter, or copies of or
extracts from documents, must be
paid by the party filing them."
Stephen's Dig., art. 125.
1 Boulter v. Behrend, 20 D. C. 567;
Cosmer's Adnl'r v. Smith, 15 S. E.
Rep. 977 ; 36 W. Va. 788 ; Johnson v.
Buckel, 20 N. Y. S. 566; 65 Hun,
601; Hitnier v. Boutclies, 67 Hun,
203; Irvin v. Howard, 37 Ga. 23;
Dunnenbaum v. Schram, 59 Tex.
281 ; Winters v. Pearson, 72 Cal. 553 j
Parsons v. Stockbridge, 42 Ind. 131 ;
Bui-nett V. McGluey (Mo., 1888), 4 S.
W. Rep. 694 ; Carleton v. Carleton,
85 N. Y. 313 ; Thompson v. Judge,
54 Mioh. 237.
84
2 Altmeyer v. Caulfield, 37 W. Va.
847 ; Haight v. Arnold, 48 Mich. 512 ;
Filer, etc. Co. v. Sohns, 63 Wis. 118 ;
Wirt V. Dinan, 44 Mo. App. 583;
Baumgartner v. Mfg. Co. (Minn.,
1893), 52 N. W. Rep. 964; Hinzie v.
Moody, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 26 ; Hall v.
Kintz, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 24; Bige-
low V. Ohatterton, 10 U. S. App.
267.
3 Carleton v. Carleton, 85 N. Y.
313: Pearce v. Hawkins, 62 Tex.
435; Ilett v. Collins, 103 111. 403;
Mathews v. Sharp, 99 Pa. St. 560;
Miller v. Munson, 34 Wis. 579; Blum
V. Davis, 56 Tex. 426.
4 Balls V. Smith, 3 M. & G. 350;
Opdyke v. Marble, 18 Abb. Pr. 375.
5 In re Eady, 6 Dowl. Pr. Cas. 615.
ePose V. Solliers, 6 Dow. & Ry.
514 ; Marzetti v. Du Jouif ray, 1 Dowl.
Pr. Cas. 41.
'Musgrove v. Mott, 90 Mo. 107;
2 S. W. Rep. 214; Fortenheim v.
Claflin, 47 Ark. 49.
530 AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS. [§ 359-
§ 359. Definition and character of depositions. — "A dep-
osition is evidence given under interrogatories, oral or writ-
ten, and usually written down by an official person." ^ Deposi-
tions may be offered as evidence in all cases where a non-resident
witness refuses or is unable to attend court, or where a wit-
ness who is resident within the jurisdiction is so ill or feeble
that he cannot appear in court.^ The usefulness of this mode
of procuring evidence was first recognized in courts of admir-
alty, where it is of particular value because of the difficulty of
obtaining the presence of mariners, who are usually transient
in their habits of living and places of abode.
The practice of taking 'depositions has been universally
adopted in other tribunals of justice, and it is now almost
wholly regulated by statutes, which should be consulted in
every case. Under these statutes, and as a matter of prac-
tice, in their absence the party who wishes to secure the tes-
timony of an absent witness applies to the court to issue a
letter rogatorj'-, which is in form a writ issued ' under the seal
of the court directed to a courtof superior jurisdiction located
in the state or countr}'" in which the foreign witness resides,
and requesting the latter court in furtherance of justice, and
out of international comity, to cause the evidence of the wit-
ness named therein to be procured according-to its customary
mode of procedure, to have the same committed to writing
and returned to the court issuing the letter.
Interrogatories framed by the parties are forwarded with
the letter, and these, with the original answers thereto,
signed by and verified with the oath of the witness and duly
authenticated, are returned to the court in which the deposi-
tion is to be used.* Under certain circumstances the witness
1 Stimpson v. Brooks, S Blatch. subsequent introduction of the evi-
(U. S.) 456. dence of witnesses who are disqual-
''■ People V. Lundquist, 8i Cal. 23 ; ified, see ante, g§ 120-124.
People V. Thompson, 84 id. 598. » Blakelee v. Dye (Colo., 1893), 27
Where a physician testifies that Pac. Rep. 881.
though an infirm and sick witness <Hemenway v. Knudsen, 67 Hun,
was able to attend court, yet she 648; Fry v. Man. Trust Co., 33 Civ.
should not be compelled to do so. Pro. R. 530 ; Hobart v. Jones, 5
her deposition will be taken. Norris Wash. St. 385 ; Stierle v. Kaiser
v. Norris, 3 Ind. App. 500. See, also, (La., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 839. The in-
arde, g§ 282, 283, 288. As to the terrogatories should not be leading
§ 360.]
AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS.
531
may be examined viva voce without writteu interrogatories
or the two methods of examination may be combined. ^
§ 360. Mode of procuring depositipiis.— The details of the
taw governing the talking of depositions are largely regulated
by statutes which, while differing in minor points, are upon
the whole substantially alike. By the federal statute the com-
mission may issue to a judge of a federal court, or of a supe-
rior state court, or county court, court of common pleas, or to
a' mayor or chief magistrate of a city.^ The adverse party is
entitled to reasonable notice personally served on him or his
attorney, and has the absolute right to be present and to cross-
examine the witness;' and a failure to notify him,* or a notice
received when he is elsewhere taking another deposition in the
case,' will render the deposition inadmissible." The witness
should be duly sworn in the precise mode which is prescribed
by the statute, if any,' and the examining magis'trate's failure
to state the fact that he was so sworn will render the depo-
sition inadmissible.'
The deposition when completed with a proper certificate of
(Lott T. King, 79 Tex. 292), nor im-
material (In re Allis, 44 Fed. Rep.
316), nor call upon the witness to
speak from hearsay. Gilpin v. Daly,
58 Hun, 610.
1 Laidley v. Rogers, 67 Hun, 653 ;
33 Civ, Pro. R. 110; 1 Greenl. on
Ev., § 330; Pole v. Rogers, 3 Bing.
N. C. 780. Cf. Nevitt v. Crow (Gal.,
1893), 29 Pac. Rep. 749. See as
to "open commissions" in New
York, Code C. P., §§ 893, 894, 897
et seq. ; Jones v. Hoyt, 10 Abb. N, C.
;i34 ; 63 How. Pr. 94 ; Heney v. Weed,
4 Law Bui. (N. Y.) 10; Jennison v.
Citizens' Sav. Bank, 85 N. Y. 546 ;
Whitney v. Wyncoop, 4 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) 370; Dwinnelle v. Howland,
1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 87 (return of com-
mission).
2U. S. R. S., §§ 863-875; Bibb v.
Allen, 149 U. S. 481.
8 Cole V. Hall, 131 Mass. 88; Vaw-
ter V. Hulse, 118 Mo. 633 ; Carring-
ton V. Stimpson, 1 Curt. C. C. 437.
* Sinsheimer v. Skinner, 43 111.
App. 608; Goodhue v, Bartlett, 5
McLean, 186. The reasonableness
of the notice will depend upon the
circumstances of each case, among
which are the distance of the for-
eign witness from the court and the
facility with w'liich he may be
found. Sing Cheong Co. v. Yung
Wing, 59 Conn. 535 ; Harris' Appeal
(Conn., 1891), 20 Atl. Rep. 617.
5 Uhle V. Burnham, 44 Fed. Rep.
793; Latham v. Latham, 80 Gratt.
307; Collins v. Richart, 14 Bush
(Ky.), 621.
oSee, also, Atchison, etc. Co. v.
Sage, 49 Kan. 524; Crabb v. Orth
(Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 711.
^ Bacon v. Bacon, 33 Wis. 147.
8 Parsons v. Huff, 38 Me. 147;
West. U. Tel. Co. v. Collins, 45
Kan. 88 ; Gulf City Ins. Co. v. Ste-
phens, 51 Ala. 121 ; Home v. Haver-
hill, 113 Mass. 344; Bush v, Barron,
78 Tex. 5, (signature).
532 AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS. [§ 361.
its regularity attached should then be securely sealed by the
commissioner and transmitted by mail,^ or by some other con-
venient and safe method,^ properly superscribed so as to show
the nature of its contents, to the clerk of the court where it is
to bfe used.' If the purpose of the deposition is solely to pro-
cure evidence to rebut evidence which the party expects his
adversary will offer, a notice to that effect must accompany
the interrogatories, or he may be compelled, on request, to
read the deposition to the jury.* A failure to ^examine all
the witnesses who are named in the commission will not ren-
der the depositions of those actually examined invalid;, nor
need an officer employ an interpreter if an attorney of one of
the parties is able to translate the answers to his satisfaction.'
§361. Statutes construed — The certificate. — The statu-
tory right to take depositions being in derogation of common-
law rules, it has been considered that the statute should be
strictly construed, particularly in view of the fact that such evi-
dence, if taken ex parte and without notice, may easily be dis-
torted and employed to deceive the jurors and subvert the
proper administration of justice.^ "Whether in any case a
deposition is necessary is a question for the court, and clear
proof should be required that the witness cannot attend in
person before the commission should issue.'' The certificate of
the judicial officer taking the deposition is usually sufficient
prima facie evidence of his authority to do so,^ of the reason
and necessity f<5r taking the deposition,' and of the actual
domicile of deponent.'"
1 Prouty V. Ruggles, 3 Story, 194. ' Everett v. Tidball, 34 Neb. 803
2 Andrews v. Parker, 48 Tex. 94. Turnbull v. Laubagh, 6 Kulp, 368
3Babb V. Aldricb, 45 Kan. 318; Whitford v. ClarkCo., 119U. S. 523
Beal V. Thompson, 8 Cranch, 70; 8 Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How. 375
Travers v. Jennings (S. C, 1893), 17 Hoyt v. Hammekin, 14 How. 346
S. E. Rep. 849. Littlehale v. Dix, 11 Gush. 365
* Linfield v. Old Colony E. E. Co., Palmer v. Fogg, 35 Me. .S68 ; McNeal
10 Cusli. 570. V. Brann, 21 Oreg. 318 ; Soliunior v.
5 Schunior v. Russell, 83 Tex. 33. Russell, 83 Tex. 83 ; Curtis v. Curtis,
6 Stebbins v. Buncan, 108 U. S. 45
Jones V. Neale, 1 Hughes C. C. ,368
Walsh V. Rogers, 13 How. 286, 287
131 Ind. 489.
'West Boylston v. Sterling, 17
Pick. 126; Kinney v. Berran, 6 Cush
Greening v. Keel, 84 Tex. 336 (an- 304 ; Littlehale v. Dix, supra.
swers privately supplied to witness i' Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5
by party). Of. Moore v. Robertson, Pet. (U. S.) 60S;
63 Hun, 633.
§ 362.] AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS. 533
§ 363. Objections to depositions. — Objections to deposi-
tions should be promptly made immediately upon discovery of
defects where the objection is only to the irregular or im-
proper manner or form in which they were taken, and which
is remedial by a retailing/ and a failure to object until trial
may constitute a waiver.^ But substantial objections either to
the incompetency of the witness or the irrelevancy of the evi-
dence may be interposed at the trial.' If the witness is incom-
petent because of interest when his deposition is taken, it is
not admissible at the trial though he may have released bis
interest in the meantime;* The deposition of a competent
witness is not rendered admissible by his subsequent incom-
petency.'
Parol evidence is inadmissible to show the reason for taking
the deposition where the statute requires that to appear in the
certificate;* nor will a deposition be admissible which is
written down by a party or his counsel,' or by a third person,
where the law directs that it shall be reduced to writing by
the officer or the witness.^ Motions to suppress depositions
after they have been opened are in the discretion of the court ;'
nor can a party object to the suppression of a deposition which
would not benefit his case.'"
In introducing depositions in evidence it is. usually con-
■ Eell V. Jamison, 103 Mo. 71 ; by statute before the trial. Haynes
Harris v. Nations, 79 Tex. 409 ; v. Rowe, 40 Me. 181.
Leavitt v. Baker, 83 Me. 38; Bar- 5 Sabine v. Strong, 6 Met. 270.
num V. Barnum, 42 Md. 251 ; Mer. Contra, Messimer v. McCrary (Mo, ,
Dis. Co. V. Leysor, 89 111. 48; Leslie 1893), 21 S. W, Rep, 17.
V, Leslie, 110 Mo, 31; Vilmar v, « Chase v, Garretson, .54 N, J, L, 42.
Schall, 61 N. Y. 564- Orr v. Hance, ''Cook v. Shorthill, 83 Iowa, 277.
44 Mo. App. 461 ; Johnson v. Rail- ^ East Tenn., V. & G. R. Co. v, Ar-
road Co., 51 Iowa, 35, ' nold, 89 Tenn, 107, A deposition
2 Thompson v. Railroad Co,, 45 taken on a typewriter is " reduced
Minn, 13; Sheldon t. Bury, 39 III. to writing," Behrensmyer v. Kreitz,
App. 1,')4; Howard v, Stillwell, 139 135 111, 59.
U, S. 199. 9 Smith v. The Serapis, 49 Fed.
3 Fielden v, Lahens, 3 Abb. App. Rep. 393 ; Lewis v. Fish, 40 111. App.
Dec. Ill; Chase v. Garretson, 54 372; Zogan v. Hamilton, 90 Ala.
N. J. L, 42;Nobles V. Hogg, 36S. C. 454; Ervin v. Bevil, 80 Tex. 332;
333. Goldmark v. Metro, Opera H. Co.,
* Reed v. Rice, 35 Vt. 171. Contra 67 Hun, 653.
where the incompetency is removed i' Cowen v. Eartherly (Ala., 1892),
11 S, Rep. 195.
534 AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS. [§§ 363, 364.
sidered necessary to prove that a commission had issued. This
should be proved by the production of the commission itself.
The production of the interrogatories, while always advisable,
may be dispensed with, though the answers may be less easily
comprehended because of the absence of the questions.' Eoth
affidavits and depositions, which, by actual filing, have become
a part of the record, may be proved in other courts by the
means adopted in proving judicial records.^
§ 363. Use of depositions as evidence. — A deposition once
admitted may be used by either party as evidence in the ac-
tion,' and the party in whose behalf it was taken may con-
tradict it if offered by his adversary.* But an extract from
a deposition cannot be read unless the whole is in evidence;'
nor can a deposition which has been taken for use in one cause
be introduced as evidence in a subsequent proceeding unless
the parties in both cases are substantially identical.^ The
presence of the witness in court does not of necessity prevent
the court from allowing his deposition to be read in evidence.''
§ 364. Eqiuitable Mils to perpetuate testimony.^ Where
a party has a vested or contingent right to be enforced in a
future action he may bring a bill in equity to obtain the evi-
dence of an aged or feeble witness, or of one who is about to
leave the jurisdiction. The commission is issued and executed
in the same manner and form as commissions to take other
1 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 517; Rowe v. foreign corporation whose principal
BrentOD, 8 B. & C. 737, 765. office is out of the state. King v.
2 See § 146. Enterprise Ins. Co., 45 Ind. 43 ; New
'Watson V. Race, 46 Mo. ■ App. York Laws 1869, ch. 589, and Laws
546; First Nat. Bank v. Forest, 44 1868, ch. 206. See, also. Code Civ.
Fed. Eep. 246; Rucker v. Reid, 86 Pro., §g 3343 and 929-931.
Kan. 470. echoate v. Huff (Tex., 1893), 18
^Bloomington v. Osterle, 139 111. S. W. Rep. 87; Sewall v. Robbins,
120. 139 Mass. 164; McClaskey v. Barr,
'Lanahan v. Lawton (N. J. Ch., 47 Fed. Rep. 154; Fearn v. West
1893), 23 Atl. Rep. 476; Thomas v. Jersey Ferry, 148 Pa. St. 122; Stew-
Miller, 151 Pa. St. 483. C/. Jackson- art v. Register, 108 N. C. 588 ; Hew-
ville, etc. Co. v. Southworth, 82 III. elette v. George, 68 Miss. 703.
App. 807. It is provided by statute 'O'Conner v. Curtis (Tex., 1892), 18
in some of the states that the books S. W. Rep. 953 ; Page v. Krekey, 63
of a private corporation may be Hun, 629; O'Conner v. Andrews, 81
proved by depositions taken outside Tex. 38.
of the jurisdiction in the case of a
§ 364.J
AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS.
535
depositions, and the evidence may be used when the litigation
arises. The party must have a fixed interest which is recog-
nized and maintainable at law, though it may be contingent
or conditional.^ So, though the rule has been changed by
statute in England,^ an heir could not procure a commission
to perpetuate testimony in respect to the possibility of an in-
terest which he may acquire in the property of his ancestor.'
The interest of the orator may be in any property, real or
personal,* but must be such an interest as could not be the
subject of an immediate action, for if there is shown no rea-
son why the testimony should be perpetuated the suit will not
be entertained.^ The testimony having been obtained, the
suit is at an end, and the deposition will be filed or recorded
only when the suit in which it is to be used is commenced or
on the death of the witness.®
•Townsend Peerage Cases, 10 CI.
&Fin. 289; Belfast v. Chichester, 3
J. & W. 451 ; Dursley v. Fitzhard-
inge, 6 Ves. 251 ; Allan v. Allan, 15
id. 134.
2 Campbell v. Earl of Dalhousie,
L. E. 1 H. Sc. App. 463.
3 In re Tayleure, L. R. 6 Ch. 416;
Sackville v. Ayleworth, 1 Vern. 105.
<Earl of Suffolk v. Green, 1 Atk.
450.
5Angell V. Angell, 1 S. & S. 83;
EUice V. Eoupell, 32 Beav. 299 ; Earl
Spencer v. feck, L. R. 8 Eq. 415.
^ Attorney-General v. Ray, 3 Hare,
518; Angell v. Angell, 1 S. & S. 63;
Barnsdale v. Lowe, 2 Russ. & My.
143 ; Beavan v. Carpenter, 11 Sim. 33,
CHAPTEE XXVI.
RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE — NUMBER OF WITNESSEa
j 366. Mode of offering and object-
ing to evidence.
367. Waiver of objections to evi-
dence — Necessity for re-
peating objections.
S6S. Motions to strike out evi-
dence.
869. The improper admission of
evidence, when immaterial.
370. The improper exclusion of
evidence, when immaterial.
371. Nature and use of stipulations
as regards evidence,
373. Demurrer to evidence.
373. Surprise.
374. Rebutting evidence — Nature
and use of.
375. Order of proof — Evidence of-
fered by the party after he
rests.
876. Materiality and sufficiency of
newly-discovered evidence.
377. Diligence of party offering
new evidence must be
shown.
378, Newly-discovered evidence
must not be cumulative or
impeaching merely.
379. Writ of error — When em-
ployed at common law,
380. The powers of appellate tri-
bunals in relation to the
evidence received in the
trial court.
381, Limitations on the number of
witnesses.
383, Number of witnesses neces-
sary in trials for perjury.
383. Number of witnesses in trials
for treason.
384. Compelling the calling of the
witnesses.
385. Positive and negative testi-
mony — Number of wit-
nesses as affecting the
weight of evidence.
386. The discretionary power of
the court — Judicial discre-
tion defined and considered.
§366. Mode of oflFering and objecting to evidence. — An
offer of evidence should not be too broad, general or vague in
character. It should be specific in terms, pointing out clearly
the facts which are intended to be proved under it,^ so that
the court may judge of the materiality of the evidence. The
burden of showing the materiality of any evidence which is
1 Lyon V. Batz, 42 Mo. App. 606 ;
Johnson v. Merry, etc. Co., 58 Fed.
Rep. 569; Kennedy v. Currie, 3
Wash. St. 443 ; Brelscher v. Treitske,
33 Neb. 699; Winchell v. Express
Co., 61 Vt. 15; Toledo, etc. Co. v.
Jackson (Ind., 1893), 83 N. E. Rep.
793; Carley v. Railroad Co., 48 Hun,
619 ; Wolford v. Farnham, 47 Minn.
95 ; Chicago, etc. Co. v. Debaum, 2
Ind. App. 381.
§ 366.] EECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 537
offered is upon the party offering it, and. unless he shall con-
vince the court that the evidence is material and relevant to
the issue no error is committed by the court in excluding it.
Hence, the purpose of the party in introducing evidence must
clearly appear in order that an exception to its exclusion may
be taken advantage of by him upon appeal.^ The adverse
party has the right to demand, except where the witness is
under strict cross-examination, that counsel shall state con-
cisely the substance of what he proposes to prove by the wit-
ness. If he request it, and if he does not then the court of
its own motion, may require the purpose of the question to be
shown laefore it is answered and not after the objection to the
answer as it is given has been sustained,' though if the com-
petency of the evidence is ascertainable only after the answer
has been given, it should be allowed subject to objection by
the adverse party.' If evidence is offered by a party as a
whole, it is not error for the court to reject all of it where it
clearly appears that a part of it is inadmissible, and the facts
which are susceptible of proof or which are relevant cannot
be readily separated from those which are not.* And where
evidence is offered for a particular purpose, it is not error to
receive it over a general objection that it is not admissible for
any purpose, if it was admissible for any purpose though not
for the pur|5ose which was specified.'
Again, evidence which is originally offered without any
limitation as to its purpose, when, on objection, its purpose
1 Smethurst v. Propes, 148 Mass. Va. 421 ; Carley v. New York, etc.
261; Atherton v. Atkins, 139 Mass. Co., 1 N. Y. S. 637.
61; Lahn v. Gustafson, 73 Iowa, 633; •'Clark v. Ryan (Ala., 1893), U S.
SSN.W. Rep. 660; Masters V. Marsh, Rep. 22; Reynolds v. Franklin, 47
19 Neb. 458 ; Hamilton v. Ross, 38 Minn. 145 ; First Nat. Bank v. North
id. 630; White v. Spreckels, 75 Cal. (S. D.), 51 N. W. Rep. 96; Cincinnati.
610; Dwyer v. Rippetoe, 73 Tex. etc. Co. v. Roesch, 126 Ind. 445;Over
520; Hathaway v. Tinkhani, 148 v. Schiffling, 103 id. 691; Beard v.
Mass. 85; Cheek v. Herndon, 83 Tex. First Nat. Bank, 41 Minn. 153. Cf.
146 ; Johnson v. Merry, 53 Fed. Rep. Gorsuch v. Rutledge, 70 Md. 272.
569 ; Lauter y. Simpson, 2 Ind. App. ^ Charleston Ice Mfg. Co. v. Joyce
293; Hurlbut v. Hurlbut, 63 Vt. 667. (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. Rep. 333; Giles v.
2 Chicago, etc. Co. v. Debaum, 3 Vandiver (Ga., 1893), 17 S. E. Rep.
Ind. App. 281. 115; Odell v. Metro. El. R. Co., 33
3 Gunn V. Ohio Riv. Co., 37 W. N. Y. S. 737 ; Parsons v. New York
Cent. R. R. Co., 113 N. Y. 355
538 EECEl'TION OF EVIDENCE. [§ 366.
is stated, becomes admissible for all legitimate purposes when
a further objection is made and overruled that it is not admis-
sible for any purpose.^ It is discretionary with the court to
call either for a distinct statement of the purpose and mate-
riality of the evidence, or to let these elements appear from
the tenor of the question itself.^ If the question upon its face
clearly calls for evidence which is irrelevant or otherwise in-
admissible, the court has the right to rule it out at once, and
it may treat the matter as concluded and refuse to listen to
counsel in case they attempt to show by argument that the
answer which is called for is not incompetent evidence. It is
always within the sound discretion of the court to reject oral
evidence which is offered under circumstances from which the
inference may be drawn that the offer was not made in good
faith.' Among circumstances which are calculated to excite
suspicion is the absence from court of the witness who is ex-
pected to give the oral evidence.
Again, the court may, and perhaps should, require that the
evidence shall be offered so that it will not be heard by the
jurors, where it is likely that they will be prejudiced thereby
in case it is pronounced inadmissible.* If, however, the jury
are plainly instructed to disregard the evidence which is
offered in their hearing if it shall be deemed incompetent, no
error is committed by allowing them to hear it as offered, or
to be present during the argument upon the question of its
admissibility.'
An objection to evidence, to be sufficient, should be specific,
pointing out clearly to the court the nature of the objection and
the particular grounds upon which the rejection of the evidence
is sought, or an exception will not be available." A general
y • Sears v. Starbird, 78 Cal. 225. W. Va. 679 ; State v. Wood, 53 N. H.
2 Osgood V. Bauder (Iowa, 1891), 484.
47 N. W. Rep. 1001; Hathaway v. 6 Ohio & M. R. Co. v. "Walker, 113
Tinkham, 148 Mass. 85. Ind. 196; Noftsger v. Smith (lud.,
3 Scotland Co. v. Hill, 113 TJ. S. 1893), 32 N, E Rep. 1024; Smith v.
183; Robinson V. State, 1 Lea (Tenn.), Morrill, 39 Kan. 663; 18 Pac. Rep.
673. 915; Carroll v. O'Shea, 21 N. Y. S.
* Omaha Coal, etc. Co. v. Fay 956 ; Godfrey v. Knodle, 44 111. App.
(Neb., 1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 211. 638; Brown v. Wakeman, 18 N. Y.
5 People V.Smith, 104 N. Y. 491; 263; Pennsylvania Co. v. Horton,
10 N. E. Rep. 873; State v. Cain, 20 132 Ind. 189; Mooney v. Peck, 49 N.
§ 366.]
EECEPTION OF EVIDENCE.
539
objection that the evidence is "incompetent, immaterial and
irrelevant " will not suffice.^
Upon an appeal or a motion for a new trial no other objec-
tions can be urged than those which were put forward on the
trial.^ A party whose evideuce has been rejected must, in
order to have a review on appeal, take an exception to the
action of the court after a formal tender and objection, which
exception should be noted by the judge or by the court ste-
nographer for him. The exception should be plainly and spe-
cifically stated in the bill of exceptions over the signature of
the party or his counsel, and the bill should be examined by
the judge, who should also sign it if it is true.'
Where an assignment of error is required to be contained
in the transcript of the record, in the case on appeal or in
the appellant's brief, it must point out the particular erroneous
rulings of the trial court on the evidence ; for a mere statement
that the court erred in overruling all of appellant's objec-
J. L. 232 ; Linton v. Allen, 154 Mass.
432; Tilley v. Bllvens, 110 N. C. 343
Helena v. Albertose, 8 Mont. 499
Drew V. Drum, 44 Mo. App. 25
Briggs V. Jones, 46 Minn. 277 ; Will-
iams T. Clink, 90 Mich. 297; Hogan
V. Shuart, 11 Mont. 498.
1 Stringer v. Frost, 116 Ind. 477 ;
Johnson v. Brown, 130 Ind. 61;
Churchman v. Kansas City, 49 Mo.
App. 366; Alcorn v. Railroad Co.,
108 Mo. 81 ; Evans. R. Co. v. Fettig,
130 Ind. 61 ; Rupert v. Penner, 35
Neb. 587 ; Chicago, etc. Co. v. Beh-
mey, 48 Kan. 47. An objection to
an expert witness must clearly point
out the incompetency of his evi-
dence. Mortimer v. Met. E. R. Co.,
129 N. Y. 84; Jefferson v. New York
El. R. Co., 133 id. 483.
2 Bailey v. Chicago, M. etc. Co,
(S. D., 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 596;
Falk V. Cast Lith. Co., 54 Fed. Rep.
890; Whitaker v. "White, 69 Hun,
258; Wilson v. Railroad Co., 114 N.
Y. 487; Haviland v. Man. R. Co., 61
Hun, 626; 131 N. Y. 630; Toplitz v.
Heddens, 146 17. S. 252 ; Little Rock
V. Railroad Co., 56 Ark. 495; Chand-
ler V. Beal, 133 Ind. 596 ; Hommedieu
V. Railroad Co., 120 Ind. 435.
SHartsock v. Mort, 76 Md. 281;
Connell v. O'Neill, 154 Pa. St. 582;
Welborn v. Atl. R. Co. (Ga., 1893),
17 S. E. Rep. 673. As to the para-
mount necessity for a bill of excep-
tions, see Brooke v. Tradesmen's
Bank, 68 Hun, 129 ; Cramer v. Akin,
49 Mo. App. 163; Pace v. Lanier
(Fla., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 363; Spangen-
berg V. Charles, 44 111. App. 536;
State V. Cent. P. R. R. Co., 17 Nev.
259; Whidby Land Co. v. Nye, 5
Wash. St. 501 ; Pedrosena v. Hotch-
kiss, 95 Cal. 036 ; Bray v. Kemp (Mo.,
1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 220; Lusk v.
Parsons, 39 111. App. 380 ; Elmer v.
Marsh, 3 Ind. App. 558; Schneider
V. Tombling, 34 Neb. 661. The bill
of exceptions should contain all the
evidence where insufficiency of evi-
dence is alleged, Texas, etc. Co. v.
Cox, 145 U. S. 593. See, also, note 1,
p. 558, post
540 EECEPTION OF BVIDBNOB. [§ 367.
tions will not suffice.' The evidence itself should be stated
and the action of the court thereon clearly described. A party
has no right to speculate on the effect of evidence. He should
not be permitted to maintain silence in case the inadmissible
evidence, which was introduced by his adversary without ob-
jection, proves favorable to himself, and move to strike it out
if, on the other hand, it turns out more favorably to his ad-
versary. Hence, the reception of inadmissible evidence is not
ground for a new trial because th6 jury was not warned to
disregard it, unless the party objected promptly when the
evidence was offered and took an exception in case his objec-
tion was overruled.^ If evidence is rejected on the trial
because it was irrelevant or otherwise improper for the pur-
pose for which it was offered, a new trial will not be granted
because it has been subsequently discovered that the evidence
would have been admissible on other grounds or for another
purpose, unless the party who appeals or moves for a new trial
shall show that he was not in fault in the matter and that he
has been unjustly and substantially prejudiced by its admis-
sion.'
§ 367. Waiver of objections to evidence — Necessity for
repeating objections.^ Objections to the admission of evi-
dence should be promptly made; for if a party is negligent in
permitting the evidence to be placed before the jury without
making any objection, his laches may debar him from a new
trial, even though he may have moved to suppress it before
1 Weston V. Moody, 29 Fla. 169; Graham v. McReynolds, 90 Tenn.
Union Bldg. Ass'n v. Insurance Co., 673; Haines v. Savies, 93 Mich. 440;
83 Iowa, 647; Mitchell v. Mitchell, Matson v. Frazer, 48 Mo. App. 302;
84 Tex. 803; Giboney v. German Ins. Carpenter v. Willey (Vt., 1893), 26
Co., 48 Mo. App. 185; Herbert v. Atl. Rep. 488; Fleming v. Latham,
Duffur (Oreg., 1893), 32 Pac. Rep. 48 Kan. 773; Crawford v. Anderson,
502 ; Robertson V. Coates, 1 Tex. Civ. 129 Ind. 117; O'Connell v. Main
App. 664; McElroy v. Braden, 153 Hotel Co., 90 Cal. 515; Teal v. Bilby,
Pa. St. '58; Reese v. Coffey (Ind., 123 U. S. 572; 8 S. Ct. 239; Wiggins
1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 720. v. Guthrie, 101 N. C. 601 ; Johnston
2 Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Wynanfc v. Allen, 100 N. C. 131.
(Ind., 1898), 34 N. E. Rep. 569; In re 'Tuomey v. O'Reilly, 22 N. Y. S.
Gannon's Wills, 3 Misc. Rep. 339 ; W. 930 ; Higginbotham v. Campbell
U.T.Co. v.Lindley, 89Ga.484;Deev. (Ga., 1893), 15 S. E. Rep. 797; Haines
Sharon Hill Acad., 3 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. v. Thompson, 3 Misc. Rep. 385; Sul-
238; Boughton v. Smith, 67 Hun, livan v. Sullivan (Ind., 1893), 82 N.
652; People v. Cronise, 51 Hun, 489; E. Rep. 1132.
§ 367.] EEOEPTION OF EVIDKNCE. 541
trial, as in the case of a deposition which is read to the jur}'/
or, where the witness is permitted to answer an immaterial
or irrelevant question, he has moved to strike out the ansn-er.^
Where a witness has testified to certain facts without any ob-
jection, an objection to the admission of similar or cumulative
evidence from hira or from another witness will be deemed
waived by the party's silence.^ On the other hand, where ob-
jections to the general competency of the witness, or to the
admissibility of his testimony in its entirety, or to a certain por-
tion of it consisting of similar questions, have been promptly
made and overruled, counsel is under no necessit}^ of repeat-
ing his objections indefinitely, either to the competency of the
witness or to the relevancy or admissibility of any questions
which may be included legitimately in the prior objections.''
The party over whose objection evidence is received should
demand an express ruling by the court upon his exception
taken thereto, for if no rulings appear upon the record it will
be presumed that the party waived his right to take an ex-
ception to evidence which he claims was inadmissible.'
In conformity with the general rule that objections not
promptly made will be deemed to have been waived, it is held
that objections to evidence cannot be urged on a trial de novo
in an appellate court which were not interposed in the court
below.* An objection to the reception of evidence may be
1 Union Pac. Ey. v. Reese, 56 Fed. v. Miller, 89 Ga. 73 ; Briee v. Miller,
Rep. 569. 35 S. C. 537.
2 Cleveland, etc. Co. v. "Wynant * Gilpin v. Gilpin, 12 Colo. 504;
<Ind., 1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 569; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633 ; Whit-
Omaha So. Ry. Co. V. Beeson (Neb., ney v. Traynor, 74 Wis. 289; In re
1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 557; Chandler Eysamon, 113 N. Y. 62. If either
V. Beall, 133 Ind. 596 ; Scott v. Metro, parly without objection introduce
El. R. Co., 21 N. Y. S. 631; Ball- a part of a conversation in evidence, i
meyer v. Dallmeyer (Pa., 1888), 16 his adversary will not be considered
Atl. Rep. 73 ; Hughes v. Ward, 38 lo have thereby waived his right to
Kan. 452 ; Lewars v. Weaver, 121 object to the residue if the part al-
Pa. St. 268. Contra, Jones v. State, ready called out was irrelevant. Peo-
118 Ind. 39. pie v. White, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) HI.
3 Pharo V. Beadleston, 21 N. Y. S. ^ Shroder v. Webster (Iowa, 1892),
989; Denver & R. G. Co. v. Morri- 55 N. W. Rep. 569 ; Taliaferro v. Lee
son (Colo., 1893), 32 Pac. Rep. 859; (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 125; Burdin
Shrimpton v. Philbrick (Minn., 1S93), v. Trenton (Mo., 1893), 33 S. W. Rep.
55 N. W. Rep. 551 ; Bank v. Inman 728.
(Ind., 1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 21; Payne «The cases are very numerous.
54:2
EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE.
[§ 36P.
waived by the party who has objected to it introducing evi-
dence by his own witnesses bearing upon the same fact or
transaction to which the objectionable evidence related.' But
cross-examining the adverse witness who has given the objec-
tionable evidence is not a waiver.^ ~ Thus where a party, after
objecting that his witness was not properly examined to lay a
foundation for showing contradictory statements, recalls the
witness and proceeds to examine him as regards the same
statements, he waives the objection.'
§ 368. Motions to strike out evidence.— If a party's ob-
jection to evidence is overruled, or in c^se evidence is received
upon the strength of a promise by the party that he will
show its relevancy, and he fails to do so, and in certain cir-
cumstances if the party, being without fault, has failed to
object before the witness has answered, he should move to
strike out the answer, stating specifically the grounds upon
which his motion to strike out is based. His failure to move
to strike out will deprive him of his right to urge the errone-
ous admission of the evidence on an appeal.* The motion
The following may be cited : Brown
V. Foster, 20 S. W. Rep. 611; 113
Mo. 297; Paine v. Trask, 56 Fed.
Rep. 233; West Side Bank V. Meehan,
66 Hun, 627; Van Kamen v. Roes,
65 Hun, 635 ; Rupert v. Penner, 35
Neb. 587; id. 803; 53 N. W. Rep.
893 ; Wilkinson v. Ward, 43 111. App.
541; Chicago v. Edsou, 43 id. 417;
Brand v. Servass, 11 Mont. 86;
Barnes v. Scott, 29 Fla. 285 ; Benner
V. Dredging Co., 134 N. Y. 456 ; Mer-
rill V. Floyd, 2 C. C. A. 58.
1 Doyle V. Kansas City Ry. Co.
(Mo., 1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 970.
2 Pugh V. Ayres, 47 Mo. App. 490.
SGaffney v.- People, 50 N. Y. 423;
People V. Weldon, 111 N. Y. 596.
* Pennsylvania, etc. Co. v. Cook,
123 Pa. St. 170; Link v. Sheldon, 186
N. Y. 1 ; Doren v. JelliflEe, 20 N. Y.
S. 636; Payne v. Dicus (Iowa, 1898),
55 N. W. Rep. 483; Tuomey v.
O'Reilly, 33 N. Y. S. 930; Cleveland,
etc. Co. V. Aherns, 43 111. App. 434 ;
Riche V. Martin, 20 N. Y. S. 693;
Flynn v. Manhattan Co., 20 id. 653;
Vannatta v. Duffy (lud., 1893), 30
N. E. Rep. 807 ; Partridge v. Russell,
50 Hun, 601 ; 3 N. Y. S. 529; Turner
V. Newberg, 109 N. Y. 301 ; Reiley
V. Haynes, 38 Kan., 259; Delamater
V. Prudential L. Ins. Co., 5 N. Y. S.
586; Kilpatrick v. Dean, 4 N. Y. S.
708. In some states it is held that
where no objection has been made
to the reception of incompetent evi-
dence, the court is not bound to
order It to be stricken out, but may,
on request, direct the jury to disre-
gard the objectionable evidence.
But it is also held in the same juris-
diction that the court may strike
evidence of its own motion; and
where incompetent evidence has
been stricken out it is not error for
the court to omit to direct the jury
to disregard such evidence, though,
if requested, this instruction should
be given, and, even in the absence of
§ 368.] EEOBPTION OP EVIDENCE. 543
should be confined strictly to that portion of the testimon}'-
yhich is objectionable, and the denial of a general motion to
strike out all the witness has said will be sustained on appeal
where a part of his evidence was clearly admissible.^ A mo-
tion to strike out, made after all the evidence is in, comes
too late;^ nor is such a motion proper upon the sole ground
of the insulficiency of evidence, the proper remedy being a
demurrer or a motion to direct a verdict.^ If the evidence
which is given by the witness is irresponsive,^ or irrelevant,''
or if it appears that he has no knowledge of the matter* upon
which he is interrogated, a denial of a motion to strike out is
reversible error. So, also, when by consent the cross-exam-
ination of a material witness is suspended on his promise that
he will attend for further cross-examination wlien he is wanted,
it is error, for which a new trial should be granted, for the
court to refuse to strike out his testimony if he fails to appear
as promised.'
A motion to strike out is properly denied where the sole
gi'ound on which it is based is the unfavorable character of
an answer which a party has elicited from his own witness in
reply to a relevant and proper question.^
any request, it is the better practice 3 Wilcox v. Stephenson, 30 Fla.
for the court to do so. Platner v. 377.
Platner, 78 N. Y. 90; Gall v. Gall, * See § 336 ; Stillwell v. Patton, 108
114 N. Y. 109. Mo. 353.
•' Fleming v. Shepherd, 83 Ga. 338 ; 5 Williams v. Klink, 90 Mich. 297 ;
Davis V. Hopkins (Col., 1893), 32 Pac. Chester v. Bakersiield, 64 Cal. 43;
Rep. 70 ; Waymire v. Lank, 131 Gainard v. Rochester City R. R. Co. ,
Ind. 1 ; Moore v. McDonald, 68 Md. 3 N. Y. S. 470.
331; Wilson v. Equitable Gas Co., f" Bishop v. Hendrickson, 16 N. Y.
152 Pa. St. 566; Miller v. Windsor S. 799; Bronson v. Leach, 43 N. W.
W. Co., 148 Pa. St. 439; Buford v. Rep. 174; 74 Mich. 713.
Shannon (Ala., 1893), 10 S. Rep. 263; 7 Mathews v. Mathews, 53 Hun,
Carrico v. West Vir., etc. Co., 35 W. 344; 6 N. Y. S. 589.
Va. 689 ; Roberts v. Burgess, 85 Ala. 8 East Tenn. etc. Co. v. Turvaville
193; Binford v. Young, 115 Ind. (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 63; Central
174; Bamford v. Iron Co., 33 Fed. R. & Banking Co. v. Ingram (Ala.,
Rep. 677. 1893), 13 S. Rep. 801; Smith v.
2 Kansas, etc. Co. v. Phillip^ (Ala., Zeigler, 63 Hun, 634; Silberstein v.
1893), 13 S.' Rep. 365; Falvey v. Houston, W., St. & P. F. R. Co., 4
Jackson, 133 Ind. 176; Overby v. N. Y. S. 843.
Chesa. & O. R. Co.. 37 W. Va. 534.
544
EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE.
[§ 369.
§ 369. The improper admission of evidence, when imma-
terial.— If it is clearly shown teyond all doubt that the evi-
dence which has been improperly admitted did not and could
not have had any possible effect upon the jury because of its
admission, a new trial should not be granted.^ The irrelevancy
or immateriality of evidence which was admitted is notground
for a new trial if its admission is not afHrmatively shown to
have influenced the verdict.^ So it has been laid down as a
general rule that if the verdict is rendered upon a preponder-
ance of sufficient, satisfactory or uncontradicted relevant and
competent evidence, it is never material how much irrelevant
or otherwise incompetent or inadmissible evidence has been
received.'
1 Williams v. Fresno Canal & Irr.
■Co., 30 Pac. Eep. 961; 96 Cal. 14;
Van Kamen v. Roes, 65 Hun, 625;
Indianapolis Cabinet Co. v. Herrman
(Ind., 1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 579; Mitch-
ell V. Bradstreet Co. (Mo., 1893), 22
S. W. Rep. 724 , Montross v. Eddy, 53
N. W. Rep. 916; 94 Mich. 100;
Angell V. Hill, 18 N. Y. S. 824; Cas-
sin V. La Salle County, 21 S. W. Rep.
122; ITex. Civ. App. 127; Reed v.
Stapp, 52 Fed. Rep. 641 ; 8 C. C. A.
244; 9 U. S. App. 34; Smith v. Sun
Pub. Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 240; Grun-
diesv. Kelso, 41 111. App. 300; North
■Chicago, etc. Co. v. Cook, 43 id. 634 ;
Peck V. Hutchison (Iowa, 1898), 55
N. W. Rep. 511; Wayne v. Blun
(Ga., 1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 288.
2 People V. Duffie, 62 Mich. 487;
Dibble v. Dimick, 23 N. Y. S. 680 ;
4 Misc. Rep. 190; Foster v. Oldham,
23 N. Y. S. 1024; 4 Misc. Rep. 201.
So permitting an incompetent wit-
ness to testify is not error where
his evidence is wholly cumulative.
Travis v. Continental Ins. Co., 47
Mo. App. 472; Chicago, etc. Co. v.
Bivans (111., 1893), 32 N. E. Rep. 456;
Reed v. New, 39 Kan. 727: Con-
Jior V. City of New York, 19 N.
Y. S. 85; Dawson v. Schloss, 93
Cal. 194; 29 Pac. Rep. 31; Phcenix
Ins. Co. of London v. Freedman
(Tex., 1893), 19 S. W. Eep. lOlO; In
re Gannon's Will, 21 N. Y. S. 960;
Larson v. Lombard In v. Co. (Minn.,
1898), 53 N. W. Rep. 179; Miller v.
James (Iowa, 1893), 58 N. W. Rep.
227; Lane v. Lane (Mo., 1893), 21
S. W. Eep. 99.
3 Wolfe V. Underwood (Ala., 1893),
13 S. Rep. 334; Keely v. Andrew
(Colo., 1893), 32Pac. Rep. 175. Thead-
mission of the evidence of an expert,
who was incompetent, upon a ques-
tion of value is not error when his
estimate was lower than the verdict
recovered. Bramble v. Hunt, 68
Hun, 204. The admission of irrele-
vant evidence is not error if no
finding is based on it (In re Coun-
tryman's Estate, 151 Pa. St. 577; 25
Atl. Rep. 146; 31 W. N. C. 148; Ca-
hill V. Murphy, 80 Pac. Eep. 195;
94 Cal. 139; Harrington v. Harring-
ton, 154 Mass. 517; Alcorn v. Chi-
cago & A. E. Co., 108 Mo. 81; 18
S. W. Rep. 188: Theodorsen v. Ahl-
gren, 87 111. App. 140), or if the rec-
ord does not show that it was sub-
mitted or read to the jury. In re
§ 370.] . EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 645
/
Again, as respects the proof of particular facts considered
apart from the question of a preponderance of the evidence
in the whole case, it has been held that the g,dmission of in-
competent evidence tending to prove such facts is not reversi-
ble error where they were admitted or have been proved by
satisfactory evidence of a different description.^ Thus the
exclusion or admission of evidence to prove any particular
facts, the truth of which is admitted by either party in his
pleadings, is immaterial.^
The admission of irrelevant, immaterial or otherwise inad-
missible evidence in a trial by the court without a jury, though
perhaps improper, is not ground for reversal on an appeal, the
theory of the law being that the court will not permit itself
to be influenced in its findings of fact by such incompetent
evidence.'
§ 370. The improper exclusion of evidence, when imma-
terial.— The improper rejection or exclusion of competent
evidence by the court in a jury trial is no ground for reversal
Westerfield, 98 Cal. 113; 30 Pao.
Eep. 1104.
1 Connor v. City of New York, 19
N. Y. S. 85; 64 Hun. 635; Symes
V. Exchange Bank, 48 Kan. 713;
Vulcanite Paving Co. v. Ruch, 147
Pa. St. 251; 25 Atl. Rep. 555; Phoe-
nix Ins. Co. V. Piokel, 3 Ind. App.
'."-33; 29 N. E. Rep. 433; Dawson
V. Sohloss, 93 Cal. 194; Stanton
V. EstyMfg. Co., 90 Mich. 18; 51
N. W. Eep. 101 ; Reid v. New York,
N. H. & H. R. Co., 63 Hun, 630;
Searlps v. State, 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep.
331 ; Eastis v. Montgomery, 93 Ala.
293; McKay V. Riley, 135 111. 586;
People V. Fong Ah Sing, 70 Cal. 8;
Pensacola, etc. Co. v. Anderson, 26
Fla. 425 ; State v. Conable, 81 Iowa,
60; Hunter V. McElhanney, 48 Mo.
App. 234; McGaryy v. Averill, 50
Kan. 363; Montgomery v. Hinds
(Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 1100;
Orout V. Cottrell, 67 Hun, 6505
Dorsheimer v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep.
404; 3 C. C. A. 309; 4 U. S. App.
35
500; Seligman v. Rogers (Mo., 1893),
31 S. W. Rep. 94; Greer v. Laws, 56
Ark. 37. Thus the admission as
evidence of a memorandum used to
refresh the memory of a witness,
who then testifies fully to all the
matters referred to in the memo-
randum, is not erroneous. Butler v.
Chicago, etc. Co. (Iowa, 1893), 54
N. W. Rep. 208.
2 Hartman v. Louisville, etc. Co.,
48 Mo. App. 619; Eosenbaum v.
Russell, 53 N. W. Rep. 384; 35 Neb.
513; Consaul v. Sheldon, 58 N. W.
Rep. 1104; 35 Neb. 347; Greenspan
V. American Star Order, 30 N. Y.
S. 945; Heinlein v. Heilbron (Cal.,
1893), 31 Pac. Rep. 838.
3 Markell v. Mathews (Colo., 1893),
33 Pac. Rep. 176; St. Louis, A. <Si T.
Co. V. Turner, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 685;
Baker v. Smith (Ga., 1893), 15 S. E.
Rep. 788; Kleiman v, Geiselman
(Mo., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 796;
Laumeier v. Gehner, 110 Mo. 128;
White V. White, 83 Cal. 427; Rat-
5i6 EECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. [§ 370.
where it would not, if admitted, have resulted in bringing
about a different verdict than was rendered. If the probative
force of the excluded evidence is very slight, or if its credi-
bility is doubtful, or its relevancy so remote that it is very
clear that it would not have affected the result in case it had
been permitted to go to the jury, it exclusion, though im-
proper, is not reversible error, as neither party is prejudiced
thereby.^ If, however, the exclusion of the competent evi-
dence resulted in preventing the case from going to the jury,
or if the evidence was thereby caused so to preponderate in
favor of the successful party that the verdict as rendered by
the jury was the direct result of keeping the competent evi-
dence from their consideration, then a serious injustice has
been done, and the party who is prejudiced by the erroneous
ruling of the court should have a new trial.^ But an erroneous
ruling by which competent and material evidence is excluded
will always, be deemed cured by its subsequent admission be-
fore the verdict is rendered.' If the evidence is excluded on
the direct examination of the witness, the error is cured when
it is subsequently elicited during his ^cross-examination.
clifEe V. County Court, 36 W. Va. Tuomey v. O'Reilly, 22 N. Y. S. 930;
202. 3 Misc. Eep. 302.
iDoll V. People (111,1893), 34 N. 2McNamaia v. Corp. of New
E. Rep. 413; Dexter v. Harrison (111., Melleray (Iowa, 1892), 55 N. W. Rep.
1893), 34 id. 46; Stevenson v. Gun- 322; Haines v. Thompson, 31 N. Y.
ning, 25 Atl. Rep. 697; 64 Vt. 601; S. 991; 2 Misc. Rep. 385.
Higginbotham v. Campbell (Ga., ^ Gregory v. Coleman (Tex. , 1893),
1893), 15 S. E. Eep. 797; Smith v. 22 S. W. Eep. 181; Carpenter v.
Mott, 65 Hun, 625 ; Good v. Knox, Knapp, 66 Hun, 632 ; McKenzie v.
64 Vt. 97; Barnes v. Denslow, 9 N. Oregon Imp. Co., 5 Wash. St. 409;
Y. S. 53; Tischler v. Apple, 30 Fla. Chicago, etc. Co. v.Wedel(Ill., 1893),
132 ; Taylor v. Dominick, 36 S. C. 32 N. E. Eep. 547 ; Smalley v. Ful-
368 ; Abbott v. Petersburgh Granite lerton (Iowa, 1893), 55 N. W. Eep.
Quarry Co., 62 Hun, 622; Hunnicutt 520; Tenn. Eiv. Transp. Co. v. Kava-
V. Eaih'oad Co. (Ga., 1890), 11 S. E. naugh (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Eep. 283;
Rep. 580. No error is committed by Pharo v. Beadleston, 21 N. Y. S.
the exclusion of evidence which is 989; 2 Misc. Rep. 424; St. Kevin
competent to fix liability on a de- Mining Co. v. Isaacs (Colo., 1893), 32
fendant against whom the action is Pac. Eep. 822 ; Hamilton v. Rich
dismissed on other valid grounds Hill Coal Mining Co., 108 Mo. 364;
where such evidence is wholly irrele- 18 S. W. Eep. 977 ; Minnesota S. Ag.
vant as to the other defendants Soc. v. Swanson, 48 Minn. 231 ; Jer-
against whom judgment is rendered, man v. Tenneas, 44 La. Ann. 620;
Kelly v. Insurance Co., 82 Iowa, 137.
§ 371.J EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 547
§ 371. Nature and use of stipulations as regards evidence.
A stipulation is an agreement between counsel usually required
by statute to be in writing' and to be entered upon the minutes
of the court,^ respecting the carrying on of a case which is in
litigation in court. "When a stipulation, voluntarily entered
into by the parties or by their counsel, is committed to writing
and filed with the clerk of the court, it becomes a part of the
record, is irrevocable, and both parties are conclusively bound
thereby to the same extent and on the same principles as b}'
any other matter constituting an estoppel of record.^ But a
stipulation is not binding on persons who became parties to
the action after it was entered into by the original parties,*
nor will the stipulation be held to estop infant parties unless
it is ratified by the court upon affirmative proof that it is not
prejudicial to them.'
Very frequently, for the purpose of saving time and expense,
when a witness is ill or out of the jurisdiction so that his evi-
dence can only be obtained by a commission, or where the point
to be proved is collateral, immaterial or uncontradicted, a stip-
ulation is entered into that the witness will testify to certain
facts set forth therein, or that the point in question shall bo
admitted as proved. In the former case the fact that the ab-
sent witness appears in court after the party's case is closed,"
or the fact that the deposition of the witness subsequently
procured is inconsistent with the statement of his evidence
contained in the stipulation, does not give the adverse party
^Taylor v. Chicago, etc. Co., 80 Idaho, 1174. A stipulation as to evi-
lowa, 431 ; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co, dence which is filed in one action is
V. King (Tex., 1891), 16 S. W. Rep. admissible as evidence in a subse-
641. quent action between the same par-
-Garrigan v. Dickey (Ind. App., ties, though not specially pleaded
1891), 37 N. E. Rep. 713. by the party who offers it. Cou-
3 Kenton Ins. Co. v. First Nat. brough v. Adams, 70 Cal. 374; 11
Bank (Ky., 1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 841; Pac. Rep. 634.
City of Chicago v. Drexel (111., 1893), < Kneeland v. Luce, 141 IT. S. 487 ;
30 N. E. Rep. 774; Whalen v. Bren- Midland R. Co. v. Island Coal Co.,
nan, 34 Neb. 129; 51 N. W. Rep. 759; 136 Ind. 384.
Worsham v. McLeod (Miss., 1892), 11 ^ Eidam v. Finnegan, 48 Minn. 53 ;
S. Rep. 107 ; Dilworth v. Curts, 29 50 N. W. Rep. 933.
N. B. Rep. 861; 139 111. 508; Amer. 6 Harris v. McArthnr (Ga., 1893),
Bank Note Co. v. Man. Ry. Co., 66 15 S. E. Rep. 758.
Hun, 637; Mahoney v. Marshall, 3
548 EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. v [§ 371.
a right to claim that the latter shall be disregarded,^ or de-
prive the party in whose behalf the evidence is offered of
his right to use it. Though it has sometimes been laid down
as a rule that a stipulation ought to be construed most strictly
against the party for whose benefit it was made,^ yet such an
agreement should receive a liberal and reasonable construc-
tion by the court, so as to bring about the apparent intention
of the parties and to aid in the expeditious administration of
justice.' So it has been held that parol evidence is inadmis-
sible to vary the terms of a stipulation, but that the court
should gather its meaning from the whole instrument viewed
in the light of all the circumstances in the case.*
Where a party has entered into a stipulation that evidence
which has been given in a prior proceeding by witnesses who
may be unable to attend shall be used in a pending trial, he
does not waive his rights under it, in case any witness is sub-
sequently unable to attend, by calling one of these witnesses
who may be in court.^ Where documentary evidence has
been lost and the parties enter into a stipulation that a cer-
tain mode of proof shall be adopted in lieu thereof, a substan-
tial compliance with the mode agreed on is all that can be
required, and proof as made will not be rejected because not
precisely identical in time, place or manner with that which
has been stipulated for.^ Any stipulation entered into by
1 Dickerson v. Mathewson, 50 Fed. * SchroRder v. Fry, 12 N. Y. S. 625.
Rep. 73. 5 Foster's Ex'r v. Dickinson, 64 Vt.
2HelIerv. Petterson,3N.Y.S. 257; 233; 24 Atl. Rep. 253. Astipulation
18 N. Y. State Rep. 928. that evidence given in one case may
SLallyv. Rossman, 82 Wis. 147; be read "on the trial" of another
51 N. W. Rep. 1132; People V. Cooper, case means on any trial, whether
139 111. 461; 29 N. E. Eep. 872; Mackay first or second (Herbst v. Vacuum
V. Armstrong (Tex., 1892), 19 S. W. Oil Co., 68 Hun, 222); though by
Rep. 463 ; Keator v. Colo. Coal & signing such a stipulation the party
Iron Co. (Colo., 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. does not waive his right to object to
857; Davidson V. Felder (Tex., 1893), evidence which, though competent
2.1 S. W. Rep. 714 ; Schroeder v. in the early trial, is not competent
Frey, 114 N. Y. 266; Blossom v. in the later. Bridgham's Appeal,
Griffin, 13 N. Y. 569 ; Field v. Mun- 82 Me. 333. Contra, Thompson v.
son, 47 id. 231 ; Springsteen v. Samp- Thompson (Ala., 1891), 8 S. Eep. 419,
son, 33 id. 703; Calkins v. Falk, 39 6 Crow v. Gleason, 20 N. Y. S. 590;
Barb. 620; Otis V.Conway, 114 N. y. 65 Hun, 625. But c/. Keator v. Col-
113; Rogers v. Kneeland, 10 Wend, orado, etc. Co. (Colo., 1893), 32 Pac.
319. Rep. 857.
§ 372.] EECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 549
the parties which is equitable and fair to both, which is
reasonable in itself and does not contravene public policy' or
good morals, will be binding on the court.' If a stipulation
is tainted with fraud, or if it has been entered into b}' counsel
without his client's consent, or improvidently or unadvisedly,'^
as when, for example, by mistaking the legal effect of the
agreement, the counsel admits as true material facts which
are not so, and this would prevent a trial of the case on its
merits, it will be disregarded.' So if the stipulation is framed
in such a manner that the interest of a party is likely to suf-
fer because of the fraud, collusion or unfairness which has
been practiced, it is within the discretion of the court to cause
it to be set aside.^
§ 372. Demurrer to evidence. — The defendant, by demur-
ring to the evidence of the plaintiff, is considered to admit its
truth. So the plaintiff is then entitled to all favorable infer-
ences which may reasonably and fairly be drawn from the
evidence, whether the facts which constitute his evidence
were elicited by direct or by cross-examination.' But a de-
murrer serves rather as an objection to the competency of the
evidence than to its suflBciency and weight; and if, in the
opinion of the court, there is , evidence sufficient to go to
the jury, it is its duty to overrule the demurrer.'
I Matter of N. Y., L. & W, R. R. strongly against him ; and such con-
Co., 98 N. Y. 447; Hong Kong & elusions as a jury may justifiably
Shanghai Banking Co. v. Cooper, draw the court ought to draw."
114 N. Y. 388. Pawling v. United States, 4 Cranch,
^Sperb V. Railroad Co., 57 Hun, 331. See, also, Nuzum v. Pitts-
588. • burgh, C. & St. L. R. Co., 30 W. Va.
sWard V. Clay, 83Cal. 503. 288.
* Stonesifer v. Kilburn, 94 Oal. 33 ; « Shaw v. County Court, 30 W. Va.
Powell V. Turner, 139 Mass. 97. 488 ; 4 S. E. Rep. 430 ; Hartman v.
5 Hawley V. Dawson, 16 Oreg. 344 ; Cin. etc. Co. (lud., 1893,), 30 N. E.
Hopkins v. Bowers, 111 N. C. 175; Rep. 930; Pitt v. Texas Storage Co.
City of St. Louis v. Missouri Pac. R. (Tex., 1893), 18 S. W. Rep. 465 ; Ben-
Co. (Mo,, 1893), 21 S. W. Rep. 303; ninghof v. Cubbison, 45 Kan. 631.
Healey v. Sipipson (Mo., 1893), 20 S, "A demurrer to plaintiff's evidence
W. Rep, 881 (in equity). "The de- admits the facts the evidence tends
murrant admits the truth of the to prove. The court is to make
testimony, and such conclOsions as every inference of fact in favor of
the jury may fairly draw, but not the plaintiff which a jury might in-
forced and violent inferences. The fer. If then the evidence is insuflS-
testimony is " to be' taken most cient to support a -verdict in his
550 EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. [§ 373.
In a criminal prosecution, where the accused has once
pleaded not guilty, the state may hold him to his election of
a jury trial and refuse to permit a demurrer to the evidence ;
and even if it shall join issue on the demurrer, the matter is
wholly in the discretion of the court, who may refuse to en-
tertain the plea.^
§ 373. Surprise.— By surprise is meant the introduction
of evidence at the trial which causes such a variance between
the allegations and the proofs that the adverse party is mis-
led in maintaining his action or defense on the merits.^ A
party who has thus been surprised must move for a new
trial, which should be granted if the variance was material
and the party was unjustly treated.' To warrant a court in
setting aside judicial proceedings, which are prim,a facie fair
and regular, upon the ground of surprise, it must have been
a legal surprise, and the party alleging it must himself have
been wholly without fault.*
The fact that relevant evidence is introduced at the trial
which a party did not expect would be introduced,' or which
he is for any reason unprepared to rebut, does not constitute
surprise in its technical sense. If the evidence does not give
rise to a material variance between the allegation and the
proof, so that a new cause of action or a new defense is sub-
stituted for the original cause or defense, there is no surprise
for which a new trial will be granted. Where the party goes
to trial without sufficient preparation, of fails to examine
witnesses, or is unable to produce evidence upon some point
entirely within and relevant to the issue, to meet the unex-
pected evidence of his adversary, he must abide the conse-
favor, the demurrer should be sus- 29 Pac. Rep. 1044 ; Tittman v. Thorn-
tained." Donohue v. St. Louis, etc. ton, 107 Mo. 500; Griffin v. O'Neill,
R. Co., 91 Mo. 360. 47 Kan. 116. A new trial will not
1 Duncan v. State (Fla., 1893), 10 be granted because the successful
S. Rep. 815. party perjured himself on a mate-
2 Nash V. Town, 5 Wall. 698; An- rial point if his adversary, knowing
derson's Law Diet. See cmte, §§ 23-34. the true facts, was unprepared to
3 Kenezleber v. Wahl, 92 Cal. 203 ; prove them. Randall v. Packard,
Texas, etc. Co. v. Barron, 78 Tex. 20 N. Y. S. 718.
431; 14 S, W. Rep. 698. 5 Bingham v. Walk, 123 Ind. 164;
<Lookwood v. Rose, 135 Ind. 588; Shotwell v. McElhenny, 101 Mo. 677.
O'Donnell v. Bennett (Mont., 1893),
§ 374.] EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 551
quences of his own laches; and though in its discretion the
court may grant delay, he cannot claim a new trial because
he has been surprised.^ So the mere absence of material wit-
nesses does not give the party a right to claim that he is sur-
prised so as to obtain a new trial, particular!}'' if their absence
• is the fault of the party, or if he has failed to ask for delay to
procure their attendance.^
§ 374. Eebutting evidence — Nature and use of. — The
primary significance of the word "rebut" is to contradict or
oppose. From this word is derived " rebuttal," which is fre-
quently used as equivalent to the order and time in which
evidence that is intended to contradict other evidence is to be
introduced. Thus we speak of evidence "on" or "in" rebut-
tal.'
"Eebutting evidence" sometimes signifies any evidence
which is conclusive, which will overcome a presumption or
outweigh other evidence. Again, the expression may mean
only evidence which contradicts. In the one case the effect
of the rebutting evidence is to avoid the operation of a pre-
sumption of law or of fact. In the other the result is to de-
stroy by explanation or denial the effect of affirmative evidence
already adduced.* What evidence shall be received in rebut-
tal is, as we have seen, largely discretionary with the court.'
If the evidence which is offered is such that a party should
have properly introduced it in making out his original cause
of action or his defense, it is not error for the court to reject
it if he seeks to introduce it under the guise of rebutting
evidence.* But this principle should not be pushed too far;
1 Davidson v. Wheeler, 17 R. I. Fain v. Cornett, 35 Ga. 188 ; People
433; Hartman v. Journal, 19 N. Y. S. v. Page, 1 Idaho, 194; Butterfield v.
401 ; Dillingham V. Flaclc, 63 Hun, Gilchrist, 68 Minn. 155; State v.
629; Jinks v. Lewis, 89 Ga. 787; Claire, 41 La. Ann. 1067; Collins v.
Crowell V. Harvey, 30 Nob. 570; Glass, 46 Mo. App. 397.
Francisco v. Benepe, 6 Mont. 243 ; 5 See § 375.
Smith & Keating Implement Co. v. ^ Young v. Brady, 94 Cal. 128 ; 29
Wheeler, 37 Mo. App. 16. Pac. Rep. 489 ; Belden v. Allen, 61
2 Brady v. .Valentine, 21 N. Y. S. Conn. 173; Shearer v. Middleton, 88
776; 3 Misc. Rep. 19; Cassiano v. Mich. 631; 50 N. W. Rep. 737;
Straus, 33 N. Y. S. 1036; Leonard Chateangay Ore & Iron Co. v. Blake,
V. German F. Ins. Co., 28 id. 684. 144 U. S. 476; O'Connell v. People,
s See Anderson's Law Diet ' 87 N. Y. 377.
* Anderson's Law Diet., citing
552 EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. [§ 374.
nor is the rule applied with much strictness. Evidence which
is corroborative or cumulative of other evidence already offered
bj a party, but which does not at the same time contradict
any affirmative adverse evidence or tend to overthrow any
presumption, is not admissible in rebuttal. But the mere fact
that certain evidence has, or may have, a tendency to corrob-
orate other evidence which the party has introduced to sub-
stantiate his cause of action so that it could more appropri-
ately have been introduced as evidence in chief, does not
necessarily render it inadmissible in rebuttal. The party
should not be deprived of his right to contradict and weaken
the evidence of his opponent because the only means available
consists of evidence which he might have used to confirm and
strengthen his original case.* So, though the introduction of
cumulative evidence is not to be encouraged, such evidence
has often been held to be admissible in rebuttal where one's
witness has been directly contradicted as to some material
fact in issue. Here the party may introduce another witness
to testify to the same fact as the witness whose evidence was
contradicted.^
"Where the office of rebutting evidence is to overcome a
presumption, evidence of a fact which was irrelevant or inad-
missible on the direct examination may be introduced in re-
buttal to overcome a presumption created by the adverse
party's evidence.' This evidence which is offered in rebuttal,
though it- may not have been competent because of its irrele-
vancy or for some other reason as evidence-in-chief to support
1 state V. Magoon, 50 Vt. 333. 868; Branstetter v. Morgan (N. D.,
2 Green v. Gould, 3 Allen (Mass.), 1893), 55 N. W. Rep. 758; Zacharie
465; Sher wood V. Titman, 55 Pa. St. v. Franklin, 13 Pot. 151; Southern
77; Romer v. Center (Minn., 1893), Pao. Ry. Co. v. Rauh, 49 Fed. Eep.
54 N. W. Rep. 1052 ; Kansas City, 696 ; 1 C. C. A. 416 ; Miner v. Baron,
etc. R. R. Co. V. McDonald, 51 Fed. 30 N. E. Rep. 481; 131 N. T. 677;
Rep. 278; 3 C. C. A. 153; Cogswell Schott v. Youree (111., 1893), 31 N. E.
V. West St. & N. E. Elev. Ry. Co., 3 Rep. 591 ; Bruner v. Wade (Iowa,
Pac. Rep. 411; 5 Wash. St. 446; 1893), 51 N. W. Rep. 351; Hopkins
East Tenn. etc. Co. v. Hesters (Ga., v. Bowers, 111 N. C. 175; Louisville,
1893), 15 S. E. Rep. 828; Waterman etc. Co. v. Cray ton, 69 Miss. 153;
V. Chicago & A. R. Co., 53 N. W. Medlin v. Wilkins, 1 Tex. Civ. App.
Rep. 247; 83 Wis. 613. 465; Sheahan v. National S. S. Co.,
3 Winslow V. State, 93 Ala. 78 ; 66 Hun, 48.
First Nat. Bank v. Clark, 134 N. Y.
§ 375.] RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 553
the case of the party, has been rendered competent by the ac.
tion of the adverse party.' So, where a party brings out a
part of a conversation, his adversary should in fairness be
allowed in rebuttal to elicit the residue from the witness, to
explain the earlier portion or rebut any adverse inferences or
presumptions which may be drawn therefrom by the jurors.^
§ 375. Order of proof —Evidence offered by the party
after he rests. — The party who has the right to open and
close will not be allowed to develop his case in part only.
It is usually considered proper to require him to introduce all
the evidence he may have to support his case, though he need
not anticipate the evidence of his adversary and attempt to
rebut it before it is offered. Each party should be compelled
to exhaust his evidence, and neither should be permitted to
withhold evidence for the purpose of gaining an unfair advan-
tage over his opponent by producing evidence as in rebuttal
which should, because of its relation to the facts in issue, be
offered in chief.^
After the evidence in chief on both sides has all been re-
ceived, the party who has the right to open and close may
offer evidence in rebuttal intended to destroy or overcome the
effect of some particular evidence which the adverse party
has attempted to prove as a part of his case. But the order
and time of introducing evidence are largely in the discretion
of the court, and if the evidence which is offered is relevant,
and if the failure of the party to introduce it at the proper
time and in its proper order is not due to a lack of diligence
1 O'Brien v. Weiler, 68 Hun, 64; 55 N. W. Rep. 88; Blewett v. Gay-
Ingram v. Wackernagel, 83 Iowa, nor, 77 Wis. 378 ; Dunn v. People,
82;Kru6chkev. Stefan, 83 Wis. 378; 29 N. Y. 523; Blake v. People, 73
Koontz V. Owens, 109 Mo. 1. N. Y. 586 ; State v. Hunsaker, 16
2 Haver V. Schuyhart, 48 Mo. App. Oreg. 497; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v.
50; Sohwarz .-. Wood, 67 Hun, 648; Chicago, etc. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 309;
Swift Elec. L. Co. v. Grant, 90 Mich. York v. Pease, 2 Gray (Mass.), 282 ;
469; 51 N. W. Rep. 539; Scott v. Gushing v. Billings, 2 Cush. (Mass.)
People (111., 1893), SON. E. Rep. 829; 158; Brown v. Marshall, 130 Ind.
House V. Lockwood, 63 Hun, 630. 338; Easley v. Miss. Pac. Ry. Co., 30
3 Hamilton Buggy Co. v. Iowa S. W. Rep. 1078 ; McDermott v. Chi-
FuggyCo. (Iowa, 1893), 55N. W. Rep. cago, etc. Co. (Wis., 1893), 55 N. W.
496 ; Ankersmit V. Bluxome, 48 Hun, Rep. 79; Mutual L, Ins. Co. v.
1; Casteel v. Millison, 41 111. App. 61; Thomson (Ky., 1893), 32 S. W. Rep.
Thatcher v..Stickney (Iowa, 1893), 87; Lamance v. Byrnes, 17 Nev. 197.
554
EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE.
[§ 376.
on his part, the court may re-open the case to admit it, not
only after the party has rested, but even after the argument
has begun.^
§ 376. Materiality and sufficiency of newly-discovered
evidence. — The power to grant a new trial because of newly-
discovered evidence is to a large extent a discretionary power,^
and to call forth its exercise the court should be satisfied that
the new evidence is reasonably conclusiTO and of such force
and sufficiency that had it been admitted the verdict which
was rendered in the trial would have been set aside as against
the evidence.^
It is the policy of the law to make an end of litigation and
to render necessary litigation as inexpensive as possible. For
this reason the courts are chary in granting retrials upon the
1 Taylor v. Cayce, 97 Mo. 242 ; Hill
V. Miller, 50 Kan. 659; Fogarty v.
State, 80 Ga. 785 ; State v. Pratt, 98
Mo., 483; Kimball v. Saguin (Iowa,
1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 116; Gregg v.
Mallett, 111 N. C. 74; Owens v.
Gentry, 30 S. C. 490; Des Moines
Sav. Bk. V. Hotel (Iowa, 1893), 55 N.
W. Rep. 67 ; State v. Maher, 74 Iowa,
77 ; Kansas City, etc. Co. v. Mc-
Donald, 51 Fed. Rep. 178; Lewis v.
Alkire, 32 W. Va. 504 ; Scliuman v.
Pilcher, 36 III. App. 43; Shahan v.
Swan (Ohio, 1893), 26 N, E. Rep.
223; Cousins v. Partridge, 79 Cal.
224; Jacksonville, etc. v. Peninsular,
etc. Co. (Fla., 1892), 9 S. Rep. 661;
McNutt V. McNutt, 116 Ind. 545;
Jobbing v. Gray, 34 111. App. 208;
Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785. The
J reception of evidence by the court
after the jury's deliberations have
begun has been held not reversible
error. Keeveny v. Ottman, 26 Wkly.
L. Bui. 65; McComb v. Insurance
Co., 48 N. W. Rep. 1038. So a judg-
ment not objected to when rendered
■will not be set aside because the
court admitted evidence thereafter.
Clavey v. Lord, 87 Cal. 413 ; Meserve
V. Folsom, 62 Vt. 504. In State v.
Magoon, 50 Vt. 333, the court said
" the order in -which testimony shall
be admitted is one of practice rather
than of strict right, and may, in the
discretion of the court, be varied to
meet the exigencies of a given case
without error being predicable
thereon, unless it is manifest that the
variance has operated to surprise or
in some way work a legal disadvan-
tage to the excepting party."
2 State V. Carlos (S. C, 1893), 16 S.
E. Rep. 832.
3 City of Chicago v. Edaon, 43 111.
App. 417; Wilson v. Heath, 68 Hun,
209; Finelite v. Finelite, 68 Hun, 82;
Upington v. Keenan, 67 Hun, 648;
Hilburn v. Harris (Tex., 1893), 21 S.
W. Rep. 572; State v. Myers (Mo.,
1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 383 ; "Williams
v. United States, 137 U. S.,113. " A
new trial will not be granted in any
civil action on the ground of the im-
proper admission or rejection of
evidence, unless in the opinion of
the court to which the application
is made some substantial wrong or
miscarriage has been thereby occa-
sioned in the trial of the action."
Stephen's Dig., art. 143.
I 377.] KECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 55H
production of new evidence by the defeated party, who has
little to lose and everything to gain by a new trial. Some-
thing more must be produced as new evidence than weak or
unsatisfactory evidence which would not have changed the
result had it been introduced, or which is readily reconcilable
with either side of the case.' Not only must the sufficiency
of the evidence be showjj but its materiality and relevancy
must appear as well. If the new evidence would not have
been admissible at the trial because of its irrelevancy or other-
wise, then its sufficiency need not be considered, while, on the
other hand, its relevancy alone is not enough if it would not
change the result in a new trial.^ The material character of
the new evidence and the manner in which it would have in-
fluenced the result of the trial must be affirmatively and
explicitly shown in reasonable detail in the application and
accompanying affidavits. Nothing should be left to inference
or conjecture on these important points.'
§ 377. Diligence of party offering new evidence must
be shown. — ^A party who moves for a new trial because of
new evidence must show affirmatively and specifically * the
reasons for his failure to produce the witness at the trial,
and he must convince the court that he was not guilty of
delay or negligence.' The fact that the newly-discovered
1 Laing v. Eush, 66 Hun, 635 ; Whalen v. New York, 17 Fed. Rep.
Helmke v. Stetler, 69 Hun, 109; 73.
Eddy V. Newton (Tex., 1893), 22 S. s She waiter v. Williamson, 125
W. Eep. 533; Field v. Com. (Va., Ind. 373; Grayson v. Buchanan (Va.,
1893), 16 S. E. Eep. 835; Gaddis v. 1891), 13 S. E. Eep. 457; Eoberts v.
State (Ga., 1893), 16 S. E. Eep. 931; Johnstown Bank, 14 N. Y. S. 433.
Humphrey v. State (Wis., 1891), 47 4 Etowah G. M. Co. v. Exter (Ga.,
N. W. Eep. 836. 1893), 16 S. E. Eep. 991.
2 Thompson v. Thompson, 88 Cal. 5 Chicago E. & B. P. Co. v. John-
110. "The uncJonsidered evidence son, 44 111. App. 324 ; Coffey v. Proc-
must be such as reasonable diligence ter Coal Co. (Ky., 1893), 20 S. W. Eep.
en the part of the party asking for 386; Weinberg v. Somps (Cal., 1893),
the rehearing could not have secured 33 Pao. Eep. 341 ; Succession of Coste,
at the former trial; it must be ma- 43 La. Ann. 144; Queen v. BeU, 23
terial, not merely cumulative, cor- N. Y. S. 398 ; Briel v. Buffalo, 68
roborative or collateral, and be such Hun, 219; Broat v. Moore, 44 Minn.
as ought to produce important re- 468; Briggs v. Rush, 1 Tex. Civ.
suits on its merits." Codman v. App. 19; State v. Ginger, 80 Iowa,
Verm. etc. Co., 17 Blatclif. (U, S.) 3; 574; Keisling v. Eeadle, 1 Ind. App.
Dower v. Church, 21 W. Va. 57; 240.
556 EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. [§ 378.
evidence is relevant and material and will probably result in
a change in the verdict on a new trial will not excuse the
party's original negligence,^ if he fails to show a good reason
for not producing it at the trial ; and a fortiori this is the case
where the moving party suppressed the evidence himself.^
The application for a new trial is usually accompanied by the
affidavits of the party. They should set forth in detail the,
various steps which have been taken by him to obtain the evi-
dence at the trial, and the reason why the new evidence was
not offered, in order to satisfy the court of his diligence.'
§ 378. Newly-discovered evidence must not Ibe cumula-
tive or impeaching merely. — A new trial should be granted
on the ground of new- discovered material evidence only when
it is positively shown that the evidence is not cumulative
merely,^ or argumentative,' unless the testimony on the earlier
trial was very unsatisfactory,^ or the verdict was rendered upon
a mere numerical preponderance of witnesses which the cumu-
lative evidence would have counteracted.' But an exception
to the rule that a new trial will be refused if newly-discovered
evidence is cumulative is recognized where the new evidence is
cumulative of the admissions made by an adverse witness favor-
able to the moving party,^ or of the evidence of an adverse
witness on his cross-examination. Neither should a new trial
be granted because of newly-discovered evidence, the sole ef-
fect of which would be to contradict or otherwise impeach
1 Kansas City, etc. Co. v. Philips 7 Kulp, ]03; State v, Hendrix (La.,
(Ala.,1893), 13 S. Rep. 65; Fitzgerald 1893), 13 S. Rep. 621; People v.
V. Brandt (Neb., 1893), 54 N. W. Hong, 92 Cal. 41 ; 27 Pac. Rep. 1096;
Rep. 993. Maurer v. State, 129 Ind. 587; Will-
2 Mills V. Husson, 63 Hun, 632. iams \. Com. (Ky., 1892), 18 S. W.
SBank V. GiImore(N. D., 1893), 54 Rep. 364; Weitling v. Millston, 77
N. W. Rep. 1032; McDonald v. Wis. 533; Langdon v. People, 133
Coryell (Ind., 1893), 34 N. E. Rep. 7. 111. 382; State- v. Potts (Iowa, 1892),
< First Nat. Bank v. William Ruehl 49 N. W. Rep. 845 ; State v. Stowe,
Co., 33 111. App. 121; Davis v. 3 Wash. St. 206.
Mann, 43 111. App. 401; Wilson v. » Thompson v. Th'ompson, 88 Cal.
Heath, 68 Hun, 209; Douglass v. 110.
Anthony, 45 Kan. 439; Elmborg v. « Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co., 69
St. Paul C. R. Co. (Minn., 1893), 53 Miss. 152.
N. W. Rep. 639 ; Sweat v. State (Ga., ~ Bulkin v. Ehret, 29 Abb. N. C. 63.
1893), 17 S. E. Rep. 273; King v. i> White v. Nafus (Iowa, 1893), 51
State, 91 Tenn. 617; People v. Ur- N. W. Rep. 5.
quidas, 96 Cal. 239; Com. v. Brown,
§ 379.] EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 557
the evidence of some vi'itness whose evidence was sufficiently
credible or corroborated.' So a new trial should not be
granted merely because a witness subsequently to the trial ad-
mits that he swore falsely,^ or makes statements contradictor}'
of what he said on the witness stand.'
S 379. Writ of error — When employed at common
law. — An appeal or appellatio as defined by Blackstone an
other writers on the common and the civil law was a pro-
ceeding the use of which was, to a large extent, confined to
courts of equity, admiralty and ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
whose procedure was modeled after the rules of the Eoraan
civil law. It was, as the word implies, an appeal or applica-
tion for relief against the alleged injustice of an inferior court,
and by the civil law the whole proceeding was removed to
the appellate court, and the matter was reviewed and retried
by that court both as to the facts and the rules of law in-
volved.^ The purpose of the common-law " writ of error," on
the other hand, was not primarily to procure a retrial of the
whole subject by the supervisory court, for the reason that
the trial at nisi prius, being always by a jury, a retrial in the
court of error of the issue of fact involved by the same method
was not possible. The theory of this writ was that the issue
of fact had been properly decided by the jury on sufficient
evidence, but that in case it had not, or if an erroneous de-
cision of any rule of law had been made, the error would
appear at once upon an inspection of the record itself, or it
might be more clearly and specifically pointed out by the as-
signment of error. Thus, a writ of error might be brought
for a notorious or open mistake in any part o.f the record, or
I Fist V. Fist (Colo., 1893), 33 Pac. v. State, 129 Ind. 587 ; 29 N. E. Rep.
Kep. 719; W. U. T. Co. v. Hainan 392; Hudspeth v. State, 55 Ark. 323;
(Tex., 1893), 20 S. W. Eep. 1133; Russell v. Nail, 79 Tex. 644; 15 S.
Keith V. Knoohe, 43 111. App. 161 ; W. Eep. 635; Vanderburg v. Camp-
Sweigert v. Finlay, 144 Pa. St. 266; bell, 64 Miss. 89.
Green v. Beckner, 3 Ind. App. 39; 2Hoy v. Chicago, etc. Co., 46 Minn.
State V. Potter, 108 Mo. 424; Pease 269.
V. State (Ga„ 1883), 16 S. E. Rep. ' state v. Workman (S. C, 1893),
113; State v. Potts, 83 Iowa, 317; 16 S. E. Rep. 770.
Marable v. State, 89 Ga. 425 ; Peo- * Hestres v. Brennan, 50 Cal. 217 ;
pie V. Loui, 27 Pac. Eep. 295 ; 90 United States v. Wonson, 1 Gall. 13.
Cal. 377 ; State y. Chambers, 43 La. See, also, Anderson's Law Diet.
Ann. 1108; 10 S. Eep. 247; Maurer
558 KEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. , [§ 380.
for any omission, irregularity or informality in the process or
committed at the trial.^ The proceeding under the writ of
error affected the record alone which was removed into the
higher court, and on the denial of the allegation of «rror an
issue was raised placing the burden of proof on the party al-
leging the error in the record to prove its existence affirma-
tively.^
In most of the states of the American Union the proceeding
by which the judgment of an inferior court is reviewed by
another court exercising supervisory powers, though termed
an appeal, is substantially and in principle the common-law
writ of error regulated and modified as to details by statutory
provisions. So far as these modern appellate proceedings in-
volve a reconsideration of the evidence which has been given
in the lower court, they are regulated rather by the princi-
ples of the common law than by the rules governing appeals
in admiralty and ecclesiastical courts.
§ 380. The powers of appellate tribunals in I'elation to
the evidence received in the trial court. — ^The weight of
evidence and the credibility of witnesses are for the jury ex-
clusively, and the general rule is that the appellate court
will not, either in civil or criminal cases, review the evidence
merely because it may have been of a weak, contradictory or
conflicting character,^ provided that upon an inspection of the
1 "At common law a writ of error taken at the trial. If the bill con-
might be had for an error apparent taina matter falsely or untruly stated,
on the record, or for an error in fact, the judge ought to refuse to affix his
but not for an error in law not ap- seal." Wheeler v. Winn, 53 Pa. St.
pearing on the record ; hence any- 126.
thing alleged ore terms and overruled ^ Burkhalter v. State, 58 Pa. St. 376 ;
could not be assigned for error. To Bragg v, Danielson, 141 Mass. 195.
remedy this evil was the object of ^jjoarf] Qf Com'rs Pulaski Co. v.
the statute of Westminster. Under Shields, 29 N. E. Rep. 385; 130 Ind.
its provisions a bill of exceptions is 6 ; Aultman v. Ritter, 81 Wis. 395 ;
founded on some objection in point Belles v. Anderson, 38 111. App. 126 ;
of law to the opinion and direction Vowels v. Com., 83 Ky. 193; Bull v.
of the court, either as to the com- Wagner (Neb., 1892), 49 N. W. Rep.
petency of a witness, the admissi- 1130; Smith v. State, 11 Pac. Rep.
bility or the legal effect of evidence, 908 ; 35 Kan. 618 ; Cooper v. Perry,
or other matter of law arising from 27 Pac. Rep. 946 ; 16 Colo. 436 ; Ros-
facts not denied in which either enthal v. McMann, 29 Pao. Rep. 131 ;
party is overruled by the court. The 93 Cal. 505 ; Graves v. Griffith, 8
seal attests that the exception was Wash. St. 742; Allen v. Kirk, 81
§ 380.] EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 559
record there is no such manifest preponderance of evidence
on the side of the defeated party as will show that the ver-
dict as rendered is erroneous or unjust.^
A. verdict will not be reversed on appeal which was based
upon facts which were shown in evidence, the legitimate in-
ferences from which were uncertain or contr(jvertible. If the
facts which were proved are capable of more than one con-
struction in the minds of persons of average intelligence, or if
the evidence is such that reasonable men may, in considering
it, arrive at different conclusions, the decision of the jury is
final where the issue of fact was clearly and fairly submitted
to them.^ If there is any evidence to sustain a verdict which
is in itself reasonable on all the circumstances of the case, the
verdict should not be set aside because of insufficiency of evi-
dence, though the appellate court might have arrived at a
different conclusion from the jury on such evidence.' Where,
however, the verdict as it appears from the evidence sent up
and contained in the case on appeal is not only against the
weight of evidence but is wholly unsupported by any evidence,
the appellate court will not hesitate to reverse the judgment
of the lower court. Every presumption will be made that the
jury acted impartially and fairly, and that their verdict was
according to the evidence. Especially is this true where there
is a conflict of evidence, and here the supervisory or appellate
court will not disturb the verdict, though the evidence may
Iowa, 658 ; Bonner v. Beam, 80 Tex. Rep. 713 ; Puget Sound R. Co. v.
153 ; Simmons v. Spratt, 26 Fla. 449 ; IngersoU, 4 Wash. St. 675 ; Coleman
Powell V. Achey, 87 Ga. 8 ; McBride v. Jones, 89 Ga. 459 ; Wells v. Yar-
V. Railroad Co., 60 Hun, 585; Sears- borough, 84 Tex. 660; Richmond,
mont V. Lincolnville, 83 Me. 75 ; etc. Co. v. Burnett, 88 Va. 538.
Noyes v. Pugiu, 3 Wash. St. 258. ^ Evansville, etc. Co. v. Weikle
iRudolph V. Davis (Neb., 1893), (Ind., 1893), 33 N. E. Rep. 639; Goff
53 N. W. Rep. 841; Lalor v. Mo- v. Akers, 21 N. Y. S. 454; Paige v.
Donald, 44 Mo. App. 439; San Ga- Chedsey, 20 id. 898; Meentz v.
briel Wine Co. v. Behlow, 94 Cal. Reiker, 42 111. App. 17.
108; Huffman v. Burr, 26 Atl. Rep. ^St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v.
367; 155 Pa. St. 218 ; Van Vlissenger Spann (Ark., 1893), 20 S. W. Rep.
V. Cox, 44 111. App. 247; Mansfield 914; Kckert v. Rule (Kan., 1893), 32
V. Rab, 21 N. Y. S. 65; 66 Hun, 631; Pao. Rep. 657; Kimball v. Saguin
Mouselle v. Bacon, 66 Hun, 628; (Iowa, 1893), 53 N. W. Rep. 116;
Beveridge v. Parmlee, 43 111. App. Lalor v. McDonald's Adm'rs, 44 Mo.
459; Yadon V. Mackey, 50Kan. 630; App. 439; Shailer v. Corbett, 61
■ Eppert V. Hall (Iowa, 1893), 33 N. E. Hun, 636.
560
EECEPTION OF EVIDENCE.
[§ 380.
preponderate somewhat against it and call for a different
verdict.' On the other hand, where the verdict is not against
the mere weight of conflicting evidence, but against uncon-
tradicted evidence amounting to positive proof of the fact
alleged,^ or where the preponderance of evidence against the
verdict is so excessive that it is fair to presume that it was
rendered only because of the existence of partiality, unfair-
ness or corrupt motives or gross ignorance on the part of the
jury, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed.'
The same rules that are held applicable to the review on
appeal of a verdict b}'^ a jury are also recognized where a jury
trial in the lower court is not of right or is waived by the
consent of the parties. If the evidence, though it is conflict-
ing, tends to or is sufficient to support the judgment, and no
errors of law appear from the record to have been committed,
the decision or findings of the judge upon matters of fact will
be regarded as final, notwithstanding the appellate court
might arrive at a different conclusion upon the same evidence
if before it.*
1 Gay heart v. Patton (Ky., 1893),
20 S. W. Eep. 912; Angus v. Foster,
42 111. App. 19; Kouhn v. Schroth,
44 id. 513; Louisville &: N. B. Co. v.
Kenley (Tenn., 1893), 21 S. W. Rep.
326.
2 Walton V. Kansas, etc. Co. , 49
Mo. App. 630.
3 Lewis V. Pallin, 48 Mo. App. 657 ;
Porter v. Sherman Co. Banking Co.
(Neb.,, 1893), 55 N. W. Eep. 234; Cole
V. National Soh. Furn. Co., 45 111.
App. 273; Stanfell v. Lewellyn(Ky.,
1893), 23 S. W. Rep. 645; Eeuber v.
Crawford (Neb., 1893), 54 N. W.
Rep. 549 ; Kummer v. Christopher
& Tenth St. R. Co., 3 Misc. Rep.
398; Urias v. Penn. R. R. Co., 152
Pa. St. 336; Gary v. Cole, 38 111.
App. 236; Huber v. Schmocht, 39
111. App. 239 ; Marabitti v. Bagolan,
31 Oreg. 399.
*Castner v. Richardson (Colo., 1893),
^3 Pac. Rep. 163 ; Teeter v. Teeter,
30 N. Y. S. 259; 65 Hun, 633; Kehoe
V. Burns (Wis., 1893), 54 N. W. Eep.
731; Keesey V. Gage (Tex., 1893), 21
S. W. Rep. 897 ; Tolman v. Crane. 44
111. App. 237; Com. v. Westinghouse
Elec. & Mfg. Co., 24 Atl. Rep. 1107;
151 Pa. St. 265; Gamble v. Ross, 44
111. App. 391 ; Brown v. Sullivan, 3
Ind. App. 211; 39 N. E. Rep. 453
Smith V. Kipp, 49 Minn. 119; Rob-
bins V. City of Fond du Ijac, 83 Wis.
340; Chase v. Jones, 84 Me. 107
Glover v. Holliday, 109 Mo. 108
Sohuler v. Eokert, 90 Mich. 165
Gwyn V. Butler, 17 Colo. 114 ; Worth-
ington V. Worthington, 33 Neb. 334
Long V. Langsdale, 56 Ark. 339
Redfearn v. Douglas, 35 S. C. 569
Markley v. Hull, 49 N. W. Eep,
1050; 51 Iowa, 109; Tatum v. Col-
vin, 9 S. Rep. 747; 43 La. Ann. 755
Belford, Clarke & Co. v. Scribner, 144
U. S. 488 ; Cox v. Jones, 110 N. C.
309. A statutory provision that an
appellate court "shall review a
cause where trial by jury has been
§ 381.]
EECEPTION OF EVIDENCE.
561
So, in an appeal from the decision of the chancellor or of a
master in equity, the appellate court will not review his find-
ings of fact unless it appears that they are so manifestly er-
roneous and lacking in evidence to support them as to be un-
just or that they are evidently the result of mistake.' The
decision or finding of fact of a master in chancery, referee or
auditor which is confirmed by the court by which he was ap-
pointed is equivalent to the verdict of a jury upon the same
point, will be presumed to have been based on sufficient evi-
dence, and will be conclusive upon the parties in the appellate
, oourt.^
§381. Limitations on the number of witnesses. — It is
the right of both parties to have all the witnesses heard by
the jury who are able to testify of their own knowledge to
any material fact which is controverted. The court cannot
in such a case limit the number of witnesses, and its action in
doing so over an objection which is taken in time will be
ground for a new trial.' For the same reason if a party rely-
waived in the same manner and to
the same extent as if it had been
tried by a jury " does not, it has
been held, mean that the appellate
court shall decide upon the weight
ot the evidence. Lynch v. Grayson
(N. M., 1893), 32 Pac. Rep, 149. If a
plain and manifest error is shown to
have been made by the trial judge
in his findings of facts they should
be reversed. Metro. Nat. Bank v.
Rogers, 8 C. C. A. 666; 53 Fed. Rep.
776. But a finding of fact will not
be disturbed where it can be shown
to be erroneous only by discrediting a
witness, as the credibility of testi-
mony is for the trial judge exclu-
sively. Delano v. Jacoby, 31 Pac.
Rep. 290; 96 Cal. 275.
1 Ellis V. Ward, 137 111. 509; Mon-
tague V. Stoltz (S. C, 1893), 15 S. E,
Rep. 868 ; Dooly Block v. S. L. Rap.
T.; Co. (Utah, 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 229 ;
Thomas v. Chicago, etc. Co. , 49 Mo.
App. 110; McGill v. Hawks (Mich.,
1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 707; Hamlin v.
Phillips (Cal., 1893) , 33 Pac. Rep. 331 ;:
Berry v. Berry, 24 Atl. Rep. 957 ; 84
Me. 541; Daveyac v. Seller (Ky.,
1893), 20 S. W. Rep. 375; Herbert v..
Keck, 35 Neb. 508. The rule stated >
in the text is also applicable to the
findings of fact on conflicting evi-
dence by a surrogate or similar ju-
dicial officer. In re Sherman, 24
N. Y. S. 283; In re Snelling's Will,
136 N. Y. 575.
2 McHugh V. Railroad Co., 65 Hun,
619; Warner v. Hare, 154 Pa. St.
548; Crim v. Starkweather, 136 N.Y.
635; Knell v. Stephan, 65 Hun, 624;
Tischler v. Apple, 30 Fla. 182; Por-
ter V. Christian, 88 Va. 730: Craw-
ford V. Osmun, 90 Mich. 77; Witte v.
Weinberg (S. C, 1893), 17 S. E. Rep.
681; Johnston v. Markle Paper Co.,
158 Pa. St. 189; Morrell v. Kelly
(Mass., 1893), 31 N. E. Rep. 755;
Mech, & Trad. Nat. Bank v. Wynant,
49 Hun, 607; Levi v. Blackwell, 35
S. C. 511.
3 Village of South Danville v. Ja-
562 EECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. [§ 382.
ing upon a misstatement by the judge refrains from introduc-
ms material evidence, he will be entitled to a new trial if the
judgment is against him.' But where there is no contradic-
tion as to the fact to which the witness is to testify, or where
the fact, though not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is
immaterial, it has been held repeatedly that the court has a
discretion to refuse to permit other witnesses to testify thereto
whose evidence would be merely cumulative.^
A.n exception to the general rule occurs in the case of ex-
pert or opinion evidence. Here it has been held that the
court may limit the number of experts which may be exam-
ined by either party.'
§ 3§2. Number of witnesses necessary in trials for per-
jury.— It was at one time a settled rule of law that no con-
viction of perjury could be had unless upon the oath of two
witnesses; for otherwise the single oath of the accused would
be met only by the oath of one other person.* But this
is no longer the law. The accused in a trial for perjury may
be convicted upon the evidence of one witness corroborated
by other independent evidence, which, though it need no longer
necessarily be "tantamount to another, witness,'" must still
be so strong, clear, convincing and corroborative^ that, with
the evidence of the single witness, it shall overcome the
oath of the accused and the presumption of his innocence,'
and convince the minds of the jury of his guilt be3'ond a rea-
sonable doubt.' In case several acts of perjury are alleged in
cobs, 42 111. App. 543 ; Page v. Kre- Rep.. C7S ; Lake Shore, etc. Co. v.
key, 137 N. Y. 307; Meier v. Morgan, Brown, 123 111. 163; Cout3 v. Neer,
82 Wis. 289; Greene v. Phenix Ins. 70 Tex. 468; 9 S. W. Rep. 46; Bar
Co., 134 111. 310. Contra (where a hyte v. Summeis, 68 Mich. 841; 36
default is set aside as a matter of N. W. Rep! 93.
favor), Burhans v. Norwood Park 3 Carpenter v. Knapp, 66 Hun,
(III, 1891), 27 N. E. Rep. 1088. 632; Sixth Ave. R. Co. v. Railroad
iHanna v. Barrett, 39 Kan. 446; Co., 138 N. Y. 548.
18Pac. Rep. 497. M Greenl. on Ev., § 257; 4 Bl.
2Mears v. Cornwell, 73 Mich. 78; Com. 338; 2 Russell on Crimes, 179.
Stillwell V. Farwell, 64 Vt. 286; ^i (jyeenl. on Ev., g 257; State v.
Seekell v. Norman, 73 Iowa, 254; 43 Peters, 107 N. C. 876.
N. W. Rep. 190; Powers v. McKen- PWoodbeok v. Keeler, 6 Cow. 118
zie, 90 Tenn. 167; Detroit City Ry. 121.
Co. V. Mills, 85 Mich. 634; Owen v. 7 state v. Miller, 44 Mo. App. 159.
Williams, 114 Ind. 179; 15 N. E. 8 Waters v. State, 80 Tex. App.
§ 383.] EEOEPTION OW EVIDENCE. 563
one indictment, it seems that there must be a corroboration
as to each act, for a conviction cannot be secured on any
which is thus corroborated though there may be the testimony
of a single witness to each act of perjury .^ But any fact al-
leged in an indictment for perjury, excepting the falsity of the
evidence given under oath by the person and the fact that he
did not believe it to be true, may be proved by the testimony
of one witness uncorroborated by independent evidence.^
The rule which requires the testimony of a single witness
with corroboration in order to justify a conviction of perjury
has been confirmed by statute in many of the states. In the
absence of such a statute it may be that the prisoner could be
convicted without any oral evidence bearing directly uport the
corpus delicti. So the written admissions of the accused or of
those criminally associated with him, or documentary evidence
found in his possession, and acted on by him as true, may, if
strong, be regarded as equivalent to the testimony of a single
witness.' But the authenticity of such documents would have
to be clearly shown.
§ 383. Numlber of witnesses in trials for treason. — At
the common law, prior to the enactment of the statutes of
1 Edw. VI., ch. 12, and 5 and 6 Edw. VI., ch. 11, a person might
have been convicted of treason upon proof by one witness
alone. Those statutes provided, and the provision has been
adopted into the constitution of the United States,* and into
most of the state constitutions, that no person shall be con-
victed of high treason "unless upon the sworn testimony of
two w^itnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open
court."
284; State v, Gibbs, 10 Mont. 213; 334; Williams v. Com., 91 Pa. St.
United States v. Wood, 14 Peters, 493. If the jury believe the witness
440; United States v. Hall, 44 Fed. is not a "credible witness," whero
Rep. 864 ; Reg. v. Boulter, 16 Jur. the testimony of such a witness is
135; State v. Heed, 57 Mo. 253; Rex required by statute in a prosecution
V. Mayhew, 6 C. & P. 315; Reg. v. for perjury, they should acquit.
Braithwaite, 8 Cox C. C. 254. As to Kitchen v. State, 29 Tex. App. 45.
the corroboration required, see Reg. ^ United States v. Hall, 44 Fed.
V. Shaw, 10 Cox C. C. 66; State v. ' Rep. 864; People v. Hayes, 24 N. T.
Blize, HI Mo. 464; People v. Hayes, S. 194..
24 N. Y. S. 194; Heflin v. State, 88 3 United States v. Woods, 14 Peters,
Ga. 151. 440, 441.
' Reg. V, Virrler, 12 A. & E. 317, « Art. 3, § 3,
564- EEOEPTION OF EVIDENCE. [§ 384.
The English statute was so constrned as to permit a convic-
tion upon the testimony of one witness to one overt act and
of another witness to another overt act of the same sort,' and
such doubtless wouldbe the law in those states of the Union
which do not, in their bills of rights, require testimony to the
same overt act.
The extra-judicial confession of the accused may be proved
by one witness where it is offered in corroboration of the evi-
dence of the witnesses who testify to an overt act;^ and gen-
erally any collateral fact not involving an overt act of treason
may be proved' in the same manner as in the case of indict-
ments for other crimes.*
§ 384. Compelling the calling of the witnesses. — The
prosecution in a criminal trial cannot be compelled to call all
the witnesses whose names are on the indictment,' or who
know anything of the crime which is alleged; nor can it be
required to put a particular witness on the stand though he
may be present in court in obedience to the service of a sub-
poena.* The introduction of evidence for the state in a crim-
inal trial being within the province of the prosecuting attor-
ney, his failure to place all his witnesses upon the stand is not
' 1 Greenl. on Ev., § S55, citing of protecting the subject against
Lord Stafford's Case, 7 How. St. Tr. royal oppression, which was continu-
1537. ally seeking opportunities for the
2 Willis' Case, 15 How. St. Tr. 633- silencing or punishment not only of
635 ; Grossfield's Case, 36 id. 55, 57. those whose deeds were obnoxious,
3 1 Greenl. Ev., § 855. but of those whose language was
* The origin of the English statu- calculated to arouse popular feelings
tory requirement has been by some as well.
ascribed to the weight and binding ^Bresgler v. People, 117 111. 433;
efficacy of the oath of allegiance of State v. Cain, 30 W. Va. 177; State
the accused (1 Greenl. on Ev., § 855), v. Baxter, 82 N. C. 602.
while the introduction of the rule ^Com. v. Haskell, 140 Mass. 128;
has been by others attributed to the State v. Middleham, 63 Iowa, 150;
fact that the clerical judges of early Selph v. State, 33 Fla. 537; People
times followed the canon law, which v. Oliver, 4 Utah, 460-, State v. Mor-
provided that no one shall be con- gan, 35 W. Va. 260 ; Hill v. Com.
deraned as a heretic save on the tes- (Va., 1892), 14 S. E. Eep. 330; Terri-
tiraony of two lawful and credible tory v. Hanna, 5 Mont. 248 ; Keller
witnesses. Stafford's Case, T. Eaym. v. State, 133 Ind. ItO; 23 N. E. Eep.
408. In the writer's opinion the rule 1138. Contra, People v. Kenyon, 93
of law requiring two witnesses to an Mich. 19; Phillips v. State, 38 Tex.
overtact was due solely to the neces- App. 229; Maher v. People, 10 Mich,
sity for the adoption of some means 212.
§ 385.] EECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 5G5
ground for dismissing the indictment; nor can it be urged in
support of a motion for a new trial if the evidence which was
introduced by the state was sufficient to convict the accused.
Nor is the prosecuition debarred from calling a witness in re-
buttal merely because the district attorney has declined to
call that witness to testify in chief upon the request of the
defendant that he should do so.' If, however, the evidence
against the prisoner is wholly circumstantial and is met by
positive and direct evidence on his part,. the refusal of a re-
quest that the state be required to put certain persons on the
stand who are present in court, and who were eye-witnesses
of the event with which it is sought to connect the accused, is
reversible error.^
§386. Positive and negative testimony — The number
of witnesses as affecting tiie weiglit of evidence. — "When
the occurrence of a certain event is the fact in issue, a \yitness
called to prove its non-occurrence may, if he had a good op-
portunity of observing it, testify that he did not see or hear
it, though unable to say positively that it did not take place;'
and he may also be permitted to testify, if able to give the
details,* that he would have heard or seen it if it had hap-
pened." T.hough the weight and credibility of evidence are
for the jury to determine, the court may be permitted to in-
struct them that the positive testimony -of a witness that a
certain event has happened, while, not conclusive,* is entitled
to more weight than the statements of others who say they
1 United States v. Bennett, 17 People v. Etter, 45 N. W. Eep. 1109;
Blatchf. (U. S.) 357. In this case 81 Mich. 370. Of. Wheelis v. State,
the court said: "Whether the evi- 23 Tex. App. 23&
dence of the witness was necessai-y ^ Abb. Brief on the Facts, § 559,
to make out a case for the prosecu- citing Greany v. L. I. R. R. Co., 101
tion belonged to the district attor- N. Y. 419; Maxwell v. Harrison, 8
ney to determine for himself. What Ga. 61.
the defendant would testify to could * Burnham v. Sherwood, 14 Atl.
not be foreseen; and when the de- Rep. 714.
fendant's testimony compelled the " Abb. Brief on the Facts, § 559 ;
production of evidence in rebuttal, Casey v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 6
the rights of the proKecution to pre- Abb. N. 0. 104, 124 ; Hollender v.
sent such evidence by the testimony Railroad Co., 19 id. 18; Chicago R.
of any witness able to testify to the R. Co. v. Dillon, 123 111. 570.
facts is npt open to question." * Lighthouse v. Railroad Co., 54 N.
2 Thompson, V. State, 30 Tex. App. W. Rep, 320.
325; People v. Wright, 90 Mich. 3G2;
566 RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. [§ 386.
did not see it,' though they were present. The circainstance
that the latter admitted that their attention was not called to
it would render a verdict based upon their negative evidence
subject to reversal.^ So the positive knowledge of a fact bj
one witness is of greater value than the ignorance or forget-
fulness' of another persron who may have had equal opportu-
nities of acquiring knowledge.* But where two witnesses
with equal opportunities for knowing, testifying from their
recollection of a transaction, contradict each other, no infer-
ence should be drawn by the jury from the fact that one is
more positive in his assertions than the other.* The jury
have a right, and it is their duty, to consider the character of
a party's witnesses as well as their number; and the fact that
the jury have based their verdict on the testimony of one
witness and rejected that of several who contradicted him
will not justify setting it aside.*
§ 386. The discretionary power of the court — Jndicial
discretion defined and considered. — The phrases "judicial
discretion" or "in the discretion of the court" as they are
used in this treatise do not refer to any purely arbitrary exer-
cise of the will of the judge, but to a deliberate and careful
choice made by him, and to his exercise of a calm judgment
unswayed by personal bias or prejudice, but guided by fair-
ness under established legal rules.''
We have seen the important part that judicial discretion
occupies in the examination of witnesses, in the allowance of
amendments where a variance is alleged, in the. granting of a
continuance, in the admission of cumulative evidence, and in
1 Canfield v. Asheville, etc. Co., 781 ; Hinkle v. Higgins (Tex., 1893),
111 N. C. 597; Allen v. Bond, 113 19 8. W. Rep. 147.
Ind. 533. 5 Marshall v. Harkenson (Iowa,
2 Neil V. State, 79 Ga. 7T9; Eainey 1893), 50 N. W. Rep. 559.
V. N. Y. Cent. R. E. Co., 23 N. Y. S. « Neal v. Deming, 31 S. W. Rep.
80; 68 Hun, 495; Hoffman v. Fitch- 1066; Goldstrohm v. Steiner, 155 Pa.
burgR. Co., 67Hun,581. 0/. Horn St. 28; Chicago, etc. Co. v. Fisher
V. Baltimore & O. E. Co., 54 Fed. (111., 1893), 31 N. E. Rep. 406. Cf.
Rep. 301; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Howell v. Dilta (Ind., 1892), 30 N. E.
Pierce, 39 Kan. 891. Rep. 313.
3RaiIsbackv. Fatten, 53 N. W. ^ See Anderson's Law Diet. , 2)Jscre-
^eP' 277. Hon. citing Piatt v. Munroe, 34 Barb.
4 McCluskey v. Barr, 54 Fed. Rep. (N. Y.) ^93 ; Tripp v. Cook, 26 Wend.
153; Faber y. Bruner, 13 Mo. 543.
§ 386.] RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 567
similar matters of detail appertaining to practice and pro-
cedure.
Judicial power to determine causes does not exist aside from
the law, of which the courts are the creatures and instruments.
The judge has no discretion except that which is conferred
upon him by the law. That discretion is a legal, not a per-
sonal, discretion, and consists in discerning, expounding and
carrj'ing out the law as it comes from the law-making power
and as it is contained in or modified by prior judicial prece-
dents.^
To permit the courts to mold the law in any particular case
as often as the rights of a particular litigant may seem to de-
mand it would involve the whole body of jurisprudence in
uncertainty, and substitute the caprice or personal opinion of
a fallible judge for those well-considered and long-established
legal rules and principles which are recorded in the statute
books, and in the reports of judicial decisions, which, being mat-
ter of such notoriety, are or may easily be known beforehand
by all men. So when it is said that a matter is within the
discretion of the court and is not subject to review or re-exam-
ination, legal discretion is referred to, operating within the
limits of well-recognized legal rules and implying the presence
and exercise of fairness and justice by the court. But on the
other hand, the abuse of the discretion possessed by the court,
particularly if the abuse shall be palpable and gross, is always
subject to review. Such a perversion or abuse of judicial dis-
cretion occurs when the court departs from the well-trodden
path of legal rules and remedies and permits its action to be
swayed and guided by personal will or passion, by the prompt-
ings of prejudice or of affection, by bias, by partiality, or by
the allurements and rewards of corruption.*
^Seetheremarksof Marshall, O. J., the law of tyrants; it is always un-
in Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 known ; it is different in different
Wheat. 866. men ; it is casual, and depends upon
2 White V. Leads, 51 Pa. St. 189; constitution, temper and passion. In
People V, N. Y. Cent. E. Co., 39 N. the best it is often caprice; in the
T. 431 ; Com. v. Lesher, 17 S. & E. worst it is every vice, folly and pas-
164; Tilton v. Cofield, 93 U. S. 166; sion to which human nature can be
Ex parte Eeed, 100 id. 23; United liable." Lord Camden, cited by Gib-
V, Atherton, 102 U. S. 375. son, C. J., in Commonwealth v.
" The private discretion of a judge is Lesher, 17 S. & E. (Pa,) 164.
INDEX.
Beferences are to pages*
ABANDONMENT:
of old road, evidence of, 391.
ABANDONMENT OF CONTRACT:
parol evidence to show, 313-314
ABBREVIATIONS:
parol evidence to explain, 819.
judicial notice of, 865.
of printers, eta, 364.
ABILITY:
evidence to show, 3831
ABODE (see Domicile).
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY:
judicial notice of, 867.
ABORTION:
dying declarations not admissible in, 141.
time and means required to procure, 383.
ABSENCE :
presumptions from, 356, 357.
of witness, evidence to explain, 16.
of witness, when a contempt of court, 419, 430.
presumption of continuance of, 350.
evidence of, guilt presumed from, 124.
declarations to explain, 65.
(see also Alibi.)
of witness, when suspicious, 538,
ABSENT WITNESSES:
commissions to procure depositions of, 530-534,
testimony of missing witnesses, 167.
witness need not be deceased, 167-169.
witnesses who have become sick, decrepit or insane, 169.
cross-examination at former trial requisite > identity of parties, 169,
170.
precise language of witness, how far necessary, 171-173.
continuance granted because of —
in civil trials, 416-418.
in criminal trials, 418, 419.
570
INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
ABSOLUTE CONTRACT:
allegation of, not supported by proof of an alternative contract, 40.
ABSOLUTE DEED :
parol evidence to show it is mortgage, 329, 330.
may be shown to be a trust, 313.
ABUSIVE LANGUAGE :
by witness, striking out, 476.
ABUSIVE WITNESS:
checking by court, 473.
ACCEPTANCE :
primary evidence of, 54.
ACCEPTANCE OF DEED:
when presumed, 346.
presumption of, evidence to rebut, 315.
ACCESS:
of husband, presumption from, 360.
ACCIDENT:
relevancy of evidence of prior accident, 19.
evidence to show liability to, 368.
ACCOMPLICES :
their competency for and against one another, 433, 434
who are, 459.
competency of, as witnesses, 459.
when jointly indicted, 460.
when separately indicted, 460.
when convicted, 460.
admission of, as witnesses, when discretionary, 460, 46L
promises of immunity to, 461.
claims to immunity by, 461.
pardon of, 461.
cross-examination of, 461.
conviction on evidence of, 463.
corroboration of, 463.
extent of corroboration required, 338, 463.
corroboration, when required by statute, 463.
corroboration by confession of accused, 463, 464
presumptions against, 333.
confessions of, 136.
ACCOUNT BOOKS:
as evidence, 78-86.
must be regularly kept, 84.
ACCOUNTS STATED, lia
ACCUSED:
the identification of, 494, 495.
cannot be called as a witness against himself, 496.
INDEX. 671
Beferences are to pages.
ACCUSED (continued):
the credibility of his testimony, 496.
his interest, 496.
liis right to confront the witnesses, 496.
presumed innocent, 497.
waives his privileges by going on stand, 497.
may be questioned as to prior life, 497.
limits of cross-examination of, 497.
effect of prior conviction, 497.
simulation of insanity by, 498.
his rights to cross-examine the witnesses, 169, 170, 498,
he may be recalled after testifying, 498.
he may object to irrelevant questions, 498.
his failure to testify, effect of, 499.
comments by counsel on, 499.
his right to be present at taking the view, 491, 493.
his explanation to the jury, 473, 473.
ACCUSED AS A WITNESS:
in his own behalf, 433.
for co-defendant, 433, 434.
against co-defendant, 433, 434
ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL TRIAL:
his right to cross-examine and confront witnesses, 169, 170:
physical examination of, 298.
ACCUSED PERSONS (see Confessions):
preliminary examination of, 131.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT :
as proof of handwriting, 187, 188.
substantial compliance with statute is required, ISTl
necessity for, to obtain record, 188.
who may take, 188.
by de facto oflScials, 188.
before attesting witness, 188.
before relative of the gi-antor, 188.
before attorney of the grantor, 188.
before grantee, 188.
when taken out of jurisdiction of oiBcial, 189l
venue of, must be stated in, 189.
certificate of, 189.
official seal on, 190.
language of, 190.
amendment of, 191.
use of, as evidence, 192.
impeachment of, 192.
exti'insic evidence to supply omissions, 191.
as notice to purchasers, 193.
572 INDEX.
Keferenoes are to pages.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT (continued):
of married women, 193.
mandamus to compel amendment of, 191.
impeachment of, 189, 192.
conclusiveness of, 189, 193.
fraud in procuring, 189.
reformation of, in equity, 191.
of agent, when binding on the principal, 100-lOi
(see also Admissions.)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOVERNMENT:
judicial notice of, 378.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PAYMENT:
evidence of, 86, 87.
of firm debt, after dissolution, 93, 94
ACQUAINTANCE :
of witness with handwriting, 195.
of witness with party at telephone, 133,
ACQUIESCENCE :
as an estoppel, 111-128.
presumption from, 341.
ACQUITTAL:
of witness, admits incriminating questions, 533,
of accomplice, its effect, 484.
ACTS:
of congress, judicial notice of, 374-878,
of executive officials, 379.
estoppel from, 118-132. ,
of untruthfulness to impeach, 506,
(see also Admissions.)
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE:
when witness must have, 64
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION:
parol evidence of, 306.
ADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION (see Consideiiation).
ADMINISTRATOR:
exclusion of interested witnesses In actions against, 436-489.
(see also Personal Teansactions.)
admissions by, 91, 109.
before appointment, 100.
"ADMISSIBLE:"
defined, 14, 15.
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE:
of collateral facts, 17-19.
of motive, etc., 30-24
of character, 24-37.
INDEX. 573
References are to pages.
ADMISSIONS:
definition and character, 88, 89.
privity as affecting, 89, 90. .
parties whose admission is received; joint interest, when required,
90, 91.
of partnei's, their effect, 98-94
declarations of conspiratoi-s, 94^96.
assignor and assignee, 96, 97.
wife's admission, when binding ou husband, 97, 98.
of inhabitants of towns, 99.
of strangers to the record ; principal and surety, 99, 100.
of agents, 101-104.
by attorneys of record, 104, 105.
offers of compromise; admissions under duress against interest, 106,
107.
in pleadings, 107, 108, 109.
by reference, 109-111.
from conduct and assumed character. 111.
self-serving declarations, 111-113.
mode of proof? nature of the admissions, 114-116.
weight and sufficiency of admissions, 116.
when conclusive; mistake, 116-118.
estoppel defined, 118-130.
intention of party estopped, 121, 123.
admissions and communications sent and received by telephone, 123,
133.
to prove handwriting, 186, 187.
to prove an express trust, 400.
distinguished frpm declarations against interest,' 163.
(see also Declarations.)
ADMISSION AS PRIMARY EVIDENCE, 58.
ADMISSION OF CAUSE OF ACTION:
must be seasonable, 393.
ADMISSION OF INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE:
' when not ground for new trials, 544, 545.
ADOPTION:
agreements of, 406.
certificate of, as evidence, 211.
ADULTERY:
relevancy of evidence to show, 33, 24
presumption of continuance of, 850.
condonation of, burden of proof, 390.
incompetency of husband and wife on trial of issue of, 348,
ADVANCEMENTS :
parol evidence to rebut presumption of, 315.
ADVERSE EVIDENCE:
bringing out on, cross-examiuatioQ, 485.
574 INDEX.
Eeferenoes are to pages.
ADVERSE INTERESTS:
as disqualifying witnesses, 444
ADVERSE PARTY:
as witness, wlien he may be impeaclied, 501, 503.
ADVERSE POSSESSION :
husband and wife claiming by, 98.
presumptions from, 338-340.
resulting from parol partition, 399.
ADVERSE WITNESS :
impeachment of, by showing his bad reputation, 504,
ADVERTISEMENT (see Newspapers).
ADVICE:
confidential, from attorney, 250-254
evidence to show taking, 66-68.
to show good faith, 67.
AFFECTION:
evidence to show signs of, 270.
AFFIDAVIT:
affidavits and depositions defined and distinguished, 536.
parties to, 520, 527.
formal requisites of, 527, 528.
language of, 529.
in denial of genuineness of writing, 187. ^
to prove service of subpoena, 414
necessity of, to obtain continuance, 419.
what facts must be shown in, 419.
to procure attachment for a witness, 419, 420t
AFFINITY:
in declarations of pedigree, 73.
agency, not created by, alone, 97, 98.
AFFIRMATION:
defined, 449.
form of, 449, 450.
(see also Oath.)
AFFIRMATIVE :
burden of proof on party alleging, 381, 386.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
right to open and close in case of, 393.
AGE:
evidence of, 216.
opinion of, 269.
family reputation as to, 75.
evidence of, from inspection, 75.
inspection by jury to determine, 494 :
of document, 148.
INDEX. 575
References are to pages.
AGENCY:
scope of, 101.
presumption of continuance of, 349.
proof of, by agent, 101-104.
between husband and wife, 97, 98,
among partners, 92-94.
of railroad employees, 103.
none from relationsliip, 97, 98.
usage to explain, 316, 317.
of speaker at telephone, 133, 133, '
of telegraph company, 54.
creation by parol, 403.
proof by admissions, 104.
AGENTS:
declarations and admissions, 101-103.
AGREEMENTS (see Alterations ; Ambigcity; Admissions ;Pabol Evi-
dence ; Consideration ; Seals, etc.).
ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS :
judicial notice of, 371.
ALIAS (see Assumed Name).
ALIBI :
reasonable doubt in cases of, 13.
burden of proof to show, 384-386.
what must be shown, 385.
(see also Absence.)
ALIEN (see Naturalization).
ALLEGATIONS :
when formal, 38, 39.
when descriptive, 36, 37.
ALLOWANCE:
of time, to witness, 413.
ALMANACS :
to show sunrise, 218.
as evidence, 817.
court may use to refresh recollection, 218, 380.
ALTERATIONS IN WRITINGS :
deBned, 178.
distinguished from spoliation and from cancellation, etc., 178.
when material, 179.
in conveyances, 180.
fraudulently made, 180.
before delivery, 180.
blanks in writings, 180, 181.
presumptions as to date of, 181, 183*
suspicions caused by, 181.
576 INDEX.
Befereneea are to pages.
ALTERATIONS IN WRITINGS (continued):
by consent, 180.
testimony of expert to, 204
in contracts, burden of proof, 387.
ALTERNATIVE CONTRACT :
proof of, under allegation of absolute contracl^ 40,
AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHS :
their admissibility, 60.
AMBIGUITIES:
defined, 333.
patent and latent, 333, 325.
parol evidence to explain, 334.
evidence to prove usage in case of, 318,
blanks, 181, 182, 336.
technical words, use of, 317, 318.
in afladavits, 530.
AMENDMENT:
statutes of, 41, 45, 46.
of pleadings, when presumed, 354.
of certificate of acknowledgment, 191.
of returns, 229.
of aflSdavits, 538, 539.
ANALYSIS :
chemist may testify to the result of, 283.
ANARCHISTS' CASE, 96.
ANCESTOR:
judgment against, binds heir, 231.
admission of, binds heir, 89, 90.
ANCIENT BOUNDARIES -(see Boundaries).
ANCIENT DOCUMENTS:
definition, 148.
must come from proper custody, 149, 150.
execution need not be proved, 150, 151.
extent of corroboration required, 151, 153.
ANCIENT FACTS:
of history, how proved, 217.
ANGER:
opinion evidence to show, 270.
declarations of, 68.
(see also Theeat&)
ANIMALS :
evidence of breed of, 875.
evidence of value of, 292.
ANIMAL BLOOD:
distinguished from human blood, 881.
INDEX. 577
Heferences are to pages.
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE:
examination of party, 897, 298.
ANOTHER SIMILAR CRIME:
evidence to prove, 21.
ANSWER:
of third persons, as admissions, 109-111.
of witness, may be qualified, 267.
of witness, must be responsive, 476.
ANSWER IN EQUITY:
admissions contained in the, 109.
mode of proof, 221.
when it is evidence for defendant, 430-433,
conclusive on defendant, 430.
proof to overcome, 430.
waiver of verification of, 431.
when irresponsive, 431.
when contradicted- by defendant, 431.
as legal conclusion, 431.
must be full and responsive, 432, 433.
when privileged, 431.
ANTE LITEM MOTAM (see Controversy):
declaration of reputation must be, 155.
defined, 156.
APPEAL:,
effect of on final judgment, 233.
variance cannot be shown on, 46.
evidence not reviewable on, 558.
preponderance must be shown on, 558.
when insufficiency of evidence will be considered on, 559.
APPEARANCE:
of person, from inspection, 492-495.
APPOINTMENTS TO OFFICE:
primary evidence of, 55.
APPRAISAL:
of goods, by expert witnesses, 291-294,
APPRENTICESHIP:
contracts of, 406.
APPROACHING DEATH:
sense of, 139.
how shown generally, 140.
by declarations, 140.
a question for the court, 140.
burden of proof to show, 140.
37
.578 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
ARBITRATION:
attendance of witnesses at an, 407.
agreements) for, must be in writing, 408.
presumptions as to regularity of, 356.
evidence taken at, 169.
submission to, by attorney at law, 104.
ARBITRATORS :
competency of, as witnesses, 110.
parol evidence by, when inadmissible, 110.
rules regulating evidence before, 110, 111.
parol evidence to vary their written awards, 300.
power of, to administer oath, 451.
waiver of oath before, 451.
what facts they may prove, 447, 448.
ARCHITECT:
as an expert witness, 890.
ARREST:
privilege of witness from, 407, 431.
of non-resident witness, 431.
duration of privilege from, 423.
delay of witness abrogates privilege from, 423.
notice to officer, 423.
waiver of privilege from, by witness, 433,
of persons intimidating witness, 415.
of accused, may be shown, 497.
of witness, for contempt, 419.
(see Non-attendance and Contempt.)
ARTICLES IN COURT:
cannot be obtained by subpoena dtices tecum, 412L
exhibition of, to explain evidence, 60-63.
ASSAULT:
right to open and close in trial for an, 391.
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES :
for land taken, right to open and close, 893, 894
ASSESSMENT ROLLS :
as evidence, 310.
ASSESSOR :
confidential communications to, 356.
ASSIGNMENT :
of lease, must be in writing, 401, 406.
parol evidence to vai-y, 300.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
necessity for, 539.
ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT: '
proof of, 225.
INDEX, 579
Beferences are to pages.
ASSIGNOR:
when incompetent, 443.
of negotiable paper, 444.
his admissions, when binding on assignee, 96.
judgment against, when binding on assignee, 231,
ASSUMED NAME:
living under, 23.
ASSUMING QUESTIONS :
confessions procured by means of, 130.
(see Hypothetical Questions.)
ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF:
formal allegations' in, 38.
by witness, to recover expenses, 411.
ASSUMPTION OF FACTS:
in hypothetical questions. 372-274
by court in its charge, 31.
ATTACHMENT:
against witness, when granted, 410, 411.
may be ex parte, 419.
affidavits to show ground for, 419.
discretionary character of, 420.
for witness giving deposition, 420.
ATTACK:
on validity of judgment, 230,
effect of presumptions, 355.
ATHEISM:
as disqualifying a witness, 451, 453.
ATTEMPT:
to prevent the attendance of witnesses, 418.
ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES:
at private arbitrations, 407.
the subpoena; fees of witness, 407-409.
fees in criminal cases, 410, 411.
subpoena diicen tecum, 411-413.
time and mode of serving the subpoena, 413, 414
recognizance, 414.
obstructing attendance of witnesses, 414 415.
changing venue for convenience of witnesses, 415, 416.
failure of witnesses to attend ; continuance when granted, 416-418.
continuance in criminal trials, 418, 419,
non-attendance of witness, when a contempt, 419, 420.
privilege of witnesses from service of civil process, 430, 421,
privilege of witnesses from civil arrest, 421.
duration of the privilege from arrest, 433.
witnesses in custody, 423.
witnesses before legislative bodies, 423.
580 INDEX.
Heferences are to pages.
ATTESTATION:
of will, 405, 406.
ATTORNEY AT LAW:
competency of, as a witness, 446.
admissions by, 104, 105, 107-109.
stipulations by, 104.
compromises by, 104.
submission to arbitration by, 104.
as witness to handwriting, 198, 303.
for grantor, acknowledgment before, 188.
power of to make affidavits for party, 520.
confessions obtained by, 130.
may testify to foreign law, 213.
ATTORNEY AT LAW (CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS):
knowledge of,' obtained non-professionally, 251.
employed by both parties, 253, 354.
termination of the suit, 353.
waiver of privilege by client, 249, 252, 853.
waiver by representative of the client, 253.
objection to testimony of, by client, 353.
communications to, when acting as conveyancer, 253.
docunfents in possession of, when privileged, 253, 254
both parties, when acting for, 252, 254.
advice by, to aid infraction of law, 254.
advice to both parties, 252. ,
disclaimer of, by client, 253.
fees of, necessity for, 250.
to clerk of attorney, 250.
to interpreter, 350.
third person, presence of, 850.
time of the confidential communication, 251,
what attorney may divulge, 251, 255.
ATTORNEY'S BOOKS :
as evidence, 82.
AUCTIONEER:
as agent of both pai'ties, 403.
AUCTION SALE:
of land, contract to refrain from bidding at, 397.
AUTHENTICATION:
of stiindard of comparison for handwriting, 200-804
of private writings (see Peitatk Writings).
of copies of public records, 209.
of copies of statutory law, 211.
AUTHOR :
of scientific treatises not under oatli, 275.
INDEX. 581
Beferences are to pages.
AUTHORITY:
to speak tbrougli telephone, 132, 123.
of agent, created by parol, 404.
of persons making promises to secure a confession, 134
of agentSj attprneys, etc., to make admissious, 101-109.
AUTOPSIES:
medical testimony regarding, 280.
AWARDS:
as admissions, 109.
parol evidence of, 110, 306.
setting aside, 110.
presumption of validity, 356.
facts involved in, may be shown, 448,
B.
BAD FAITH:
eijidence to rebut, 23.
evidence to show, 23.
BAD REPUTATION OF PARTY:
in libel, burden of proof, 389.
BAD REPUTATION OF WITNESS :
may be shown, to impeach his credibility, 506, 507.
must not be too remote, 506.
(see Reputation for Truth.)
BAILMENT:
negligence in case of, when admitting evidence of bailor, 439.
receipt forming a contract of, 309, 310,
BANK BUSINESS :
regularity presumed, 133.
BANK CHECKS :
as evidence, 84.
BANKERS:
judicial notice of customs of, 373, 373i
BANK MESSENGER:
his entries as evidence, 79.
BANK OFFICIALS:
as witnesses to handwriting, 303,
BANK PASS-BOOKS:
as evidence, 84
BANKRUPTCY:
evidence of general results in, 57.
declarations to show, 67. •'
BAPTISM :
ceitiiicate of; its use as evidence, 316.
582 INDEX.
Beferenoes Eire to pages*
BAR:
pleading judgment in, 336, 342.
BARK ON TREES:
contract to sell, must be written, 397, 398,
BASIS OF BELIEF, 4.
BASIS OF FACT:
for opinion of witness, 368, 385.
BEER:
judicial notice of nature of, 371.
"BEHAVIOR OF ACCUSED:
where homicide is charged, 34.
BEHAVIOR OF PERSON:
evidence to show, 370.
BELIEF:
in religion, of witnesses, 451, 453.
BELIEF OF WITNESSES :
as to meaning of conversation, 269.
reasons for, 367.
as to handwriting, 198.
as to identity of person or thing, 269.
as to good faith, intention, etc., 370.
(see also Expert Evidence.)
BELIEF UNDER OATH :
evidence to show, 505, 506.
BENEFICIARY OF TRUST:
when bound by admissions of trustee, 100.
when bound by judgment against trustee, 233,
BEST EVIDENCE :
when required, 47-63.
(see Pbimary and Secondary.)
BIAS:
of witness, defined, 533.
distinguished from prejudice, 533.
when it may be shown, 534.
is not collateral, 534.
from. pecuniary interest, 524.
from promises or threats, 535.
may be shown on direct examination, 503, 503L
in evidence of cQmmon reputation, 155.
BILLIARD TABLES :
judicial notice of use of, 365.
BILL OF DISCOVERY:
nature of, 431.
definition, 433.
interrogatories in, 433.
INDEX. 688
Beferences are to pages.
BILL OF DISCOVERY (continued):
answers to, must be precise, 433.
averments of, confe.ssed by silence, 432.
privilege in refusing to answer, 433.
unsworn answers to, 433.
full and further answer may be compelled. 433.
contenYpt in refusing to answer, 433.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS:
its use to show testimony of a missing witness, 172.
necessity for and form of, 539.
BILL OF LADING :
presumption from the possession of, 346.
BILL OF PARCELS :
does not exclude parol evidence, 308.
BILLS TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY, 534, 535.
BIRTH:
not provable by certificate of baptism, 80.
family reputation as evidence of, 73, 74.
primary evidence of, what is, 53.
BLACKBOARD :
use of by expert, 204. '
BLANK :
in wills, cannot be filled by parol, 326.
in other writings, 180, 181.
BLENDED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, Sa
BLOOD STAINS:
exhibition of clothing containing, to jury, 61,
evidence to identify, 281.
BLOW:
evidence to show direction of, 270.
BOARD AND LODGINGS:
evidence of value of, 293.
BODILY CONDITION:
at death, physician as witness to, 283.
BODILY FEELINGS:
verbal expressions of, 68-71.
BONA FIDES :
evidence of, 31-34.
burden of proof, 388, 389.
BONA FIDE HOLDERS :
presumptions in favor of, 846,347.
BONDS :
parol evidence to vary, 801.
584 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
BOOK ENTRIES :
as evidence, 78-80.
aa declarations against interest, 163, 165, 166.
(see Stranger's Declarations.)
BOOK-KEEPER:
as witness to handwriting, 198, 203.
BOOKS:
evidence to show results of exanjination of, 57.
erasures in, 178-182.
alterations in, 178-183.
(see also Public Records; Documentary ; Evidence.)
BOOKS AND PAPERS:
production of, 175, 176.
BOOKS OF PARTY:
as evidence for himself, 81-86.
BOOKS OF SCIENCE:
use of, in cross-examining experts, 275.
BOUNDARIES :
public and private distinguished, 158.
reputation as proof of, 90, 159.
declarations of surveyors to prove, 160, 291.
maps and field-notes to prove, 160.
parol evidence of, 321.
monuments constituting, primary evidence of, 55.
of jurisdiction, witness fees in, 408.
agreements to establish, 397.
BOUNDARIES OF STATES, COUNTIES, ETtt:
judicial notice of, 368, 369.
BRAKEMAN:
on trains, 388.
BREACH OF CONDITION:
burden of proof, 388, 389.
BREED OF ANIMALS:
books to show, 275.
BRICK BUILDING:
meaning of the term, 290.
BROKEN LEG:
evidence of, 283.
BROKERS:
usages of, 373.
rules of board of, 875.
BUILDER:
as an expert witness, 290:
IKDEX. 585
Beferences are to pages.
BUILDING :
opinion evidence to sliow strength and construction of, 290.
relevancy of evidence of condition of, 18, 326.
photograplis of, 59.
BURDEN OF PROOF:
defined, 381-383.
in special proceedings, 383, 384
in crithinal trials, 384-386.
proving a negative, facts best knovsn to party alleging, 386-389.
to show confession is voluntary, 127.
sense of appi-oaching death, 140.
to account for alterations in writing, 182.
BURGLAR'S TOOI.S:
exhibition of to jury to explain the evidence, 61.
evidence of their possession, when relevant, 23.
BUSINESS:
usages of, 316, 317.
usual course of, to aid memory, 475.
presumptions from course, 346-349.
BUSINESS-MEN:
as witnesses to handwriting, 203.
BY-LAWS:
of municipal corporations, 213-215.
(see Mdnicipal Okdinances.)
not judicially noticed, 375, 376.
c.
CALENDARS :
as evidence, 217, 218, 38a
CALLING ATTENTION :
of witness, on impeaching, 507-512.
CALLING WITNESSES :
power of the court to compel, 564.
by prosecution in criminal trial, 564
refusal of request to compel, 565.
CANCELLATION:
' defined, 183.
CANCELLATION, SUITS FOR:
parol evidence in, 331, 332.
CAPACITY:
of experts, 394.
evidence of, by comparison, 296, 297.
of machinery, 390.
586 INDEX;
Beferenoes are to pages.
CARE:
common knowledge, 265, 366.
special knowledge, 365-268, 389, 390.
what may have been avoided, 265, 389.
observation with evidence, to show, 368-370.
CARGO :
stowage of, 389.
CASUALTY:
opinion as to cause of, 268, 278-380, 289.
CAUSE :
of death, physical injuries, etc., 378-'"S0.
of leak in vessel, 289.
opinions as to cause, when admissible, 368,
form of question as to, 273-374.
exhibiting instrument, 379.
experiments to illustrate, 296.
CAUSE OF ACTION:
identity when necessary, 333, 334
splitting of, 334.
CAUTION:
to be employed in weighing expert evidence, 276.
employed by witness in answering, 367.
CAUTIONING THE JURY, 31.
CERTAINTY:
distinguished from reasonable doubt, 10.
CERTIFICATES:
of public records, 209.
of records of public departments, 210.
of ^jrivate writings, 311.
form of, 209.
deputy may sign, 309.
signature to, 209.
of consul, to show foreign law, 313.
of publication in newspaper, 214.
of baptism, 80, 316.
CERTIFICATE ACCOMPANYING DEPOSITION:
language of, 531.
as prima facie evidence to show —
reasons for taking the deposition, 581.
domicile of deponent, 531.
parol evidence to supply omissions, 533.
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
when recitals, in, conclusive, 189.
official seal of, 190.
signature of, 190.
language of, 190.
INDEX. 587
Beferences are to pages.
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (continued):
amendment of, 191.
inandamus to compel amendment of, 191.
omissions in, wheb supplied by parol, 191.
impeachment of, 193.
conclusiveness of, 192.
as proof of handwriting, 187, 188.
necessity for, to obtain record, 188.
who may take, 188.
(see also under Acknowledgment, Deed, and Notary Public!.)
CERTIFIED COPY:
when primary evidence, 50.
CENSUS:
proof of, 908.
CENSUS REPORTS;
judicial notice of, 368.
CHANGE OF VENUE:
for convenience of witnesses, 415, 416.
CHARACTER:
in civil actions, 34, 35.
good character of prisoner, 26.
of deceased on trial for homicide, 27.
when synonymous with reputation, 507.
CHARGING THE JURY :
as to the evidence, 30-34.
CHARTER :
of corporation, usage to explain, 317.
CHARTER-PARTY:
oral contract in connection with, 311.
CHARTS OF PEDIGREE, 73.
CHASTITY:
evidence of, when relevant, 34.
of plaintiff in trial for seduction, 861.
CHECKS:
as evidence, 84.
CHEMICAL TESTS:
applied to writings in court, 397.
CHEMISTS :
may testify to —
as to poisons, 383.
results of analysis, 383.
effects of noxious gases. 284
ingredients of ink, 884.
safety of lamps, 384
wholesomene9s Of food, 384
588 INDEX.
Keferences are to pages.
CHILD:
exhibition of to jurjf, 492.
CHILD'REN :
their presence at conversation between husband and wife, 248,
presumptions of their legitimacj', 360.
CHILDREN AS WITNESSES:
when presumed competent, 453.
when competency must be shown, 453.
dying declarations of, 453.
may be instructed, 453.
CIRCUIT COURT:
jurisdiction of, 374.
will notice state laws, 874.
CIRCULATING MEDIUM:
judicial notice of, 365-367.
CIRCUMSTANCES :
parol evidence of, 320-332.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
direct and circumstantial evidence distinguished, 5, 6.
nature and effect of circumstantial evidence, 7, 8.
reasonable doubt and the weight of evidence, 9-13.
(see also Peesumptions.)
CITIES :
admissions of inhabitants of, 99.
judicial notice of, 368, 369.
CITY STREETS :
location of, judicial notice, 368.
CITIZENSHIP (see Naturalization).
CIVIL ARREST (see also Aerest).
CIVIL PROCEEDING:
criminal intention involved in, 10.
CLERGYMEN:
confessions to, not privileged at common law, 130.
confidential communications to, 258, 2.59.
CLERK OF ATTORNEY:
communications to, 253.
CLIENT:
when bound by admissions of attorney, 104, 105.
when bound by pleadings, 107-109.
counsel may testify for, 446.
communications by, to the attorney, 251-255.
CLOTHING:
blood stains on, 61, 281.
exhibition of, to jury, to explain the evidence, 61.
INDEX. 689
Heferences are to pages.
COACHING WITNESS:
to handwriting, 199.
"C. O. D.:"
meaning of, 865.
COHABITATION:
presumption of legitimacy from, 359.
as proof of marriage, 158.
COIN:
judicial notice of value of, 365-367.
"COLD STORAGE:"
evidence to explain terra, 319.
COLLATERAL ATTACK:
on judgment, 230.
COLLATERAL FACTS:
relevancy of evidence of, 17-19.
judgment, when conclusive as to, 333.
when involved in offer of compromise, 106.
on cross-examination, 484.
COLLATERAL WRITINGS :
parol evidence to show, 307, 308.
primary evidence of, 54, 55.
COLLECTIVE FACTS (see Expert and Opinion Evidenoe).
COLLISION;
cause of, 289.
COLLUSION :
absence of witness by, may be relevant, 16.
COLOR:
inspection by jury to determine, 493, 494.
COMBINING WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE:
to show value, 294.
COMMERCIAL TERMS:
evidence to explain meaning of, 318.
COMMISSION:
to take testimony (see Lettebs Rogatory).
COMMISSIONER:
to take testimony, power to issue subpoena, 408.
COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION:
attendance of witnesses, 433.
COMMITTEE OF LUNATIC :
exclusion of interested witnesses against, 436-445,
(see also Personat. Transactions.)
COMMITMENT:
of witness iu criminal trials, 414.
590 indb:^.
Heferences are to pages.
COMMON CARRIERS:
judicial notice of custoius of. 373.
COMMON DISASTER:
death in, 358, 359.
COMMON KNOWLEDGE:
opinion evidence, when inadmissible in matters of, 285-270.
COMMON LANDS:
parol partition of, 899.
COMMON LAW:
judicial notice of, 372.
presumption of, 348.
of foreign country, proof of, 211. 212.
illogical character of rules of, 435.
COMMON REPUTATION (see General Reputation).
COMMUNICATIONS :
through telephone, 122, 123.
between attorney and client, 249-255.
between husbiind and wife, 245-247.
between physician and patient, 259, 260.
between priest and penitent, 258, 259.
through interpreter, 66, 111, 173, 253, 469,.532l
with deceased persons, exclusion of, 440-442L
COMMUNITY OF INTEREST:
distinguished from privity, 90.
COMPARISON :
proof of value by, 294.
by experts in court, 296, 297.
of machinery, 290.
COMPARISON OF HANDWRITING:
defined, 200.
statutory rules —
in England, 200.
in America, 201.
comparison with irrelevant writings, 202.
COMPENSATION :
of experts, 277.
when entitled to, 277.
cannot be taxed as costs, 277.
for services, evidence to show, 29a
for witnesses (see Mileage).
COMPETENCY :
of deceased person as witness necessary to render dying decIaratioDS
admissible, 143.
of expert, witness may testify to, 271-274
iNDBX. ; 591
Beferences are to pages.
COMPETENCY OF EVIDENCE:
a judicial question, 34, 35.
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES:
classes of persons incompetent, 484-436.
parties incompetent as witnesses at common law, 436, 427.
testimony gf party admissible when, 437, 428.
what constitutes interest in the event, 438, 429.
exceptions to the common-law rule ; the answer as evidence for the de-
fendant, 429-431.
competency of witnesses in equity ; the bill of discovery, 431-433.
defendant in criminal trial; his competency, 433, 434.
statutory competency of parties, 434, 435.
incompetency of interested persons to testify as to transactions with
deceased or insane persons, 435-439.
what are transactions with decedents, 440-443.
perspns interested ; their statutory incompetency, 442-445.
incompetency of parties to negotiable instruments to impeach theoi,
445, 446.
competency of counsel, 446, 447.
competency of judges, 447.
competency of arbitrators, 447, 448.
definition and form of oath and affirmation, 448-451,
incompetency because of a lack of religious belief, 451, 453.
incompetency of insane persons, 453, 453.
deaf mutes as witnesses, 453.
children as witnesses, 458, 454.
witnesses incompetent by conviction of crimes ; the effect of pardon,
454-457.
statutory regulation of the competency of witnesses convicted of crime,
457, 458.
statutes construed, 458, 459.
accomplices, 459-463.
corroboration of, 463-465^
COMPETENT:
defined, 14.
COMPLAINT:
made by the victim of a rape, 71.
COMPROMISE, OFFERS OF:
as admissions, 106, 107.
when confidential, 106.
collateral facts involved in, 106,
by attornej's of record, 104.
COMPULSORY EXAMINATION:
of an accused person, 494.
592 INDEX.
References are to pages.
COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR WITNESSES:
right of prisoner to have, 410.
right to, is not absolute, 416.
depositions of absent witness, 411.
CONCEALMENT:
when material in an insurance policy, 395.
of witness by party admits his testimony at a former trial, 168i
CONCEALMENT OF KNOWLEDGE:
by witness, 513.
CONCLUSIONS :
when inadmissible, 865-370.
when admissible, 368.
inadmissible as dying declarations, 141, 143.
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS, 333, 384.
CONCLUSIVENESS :
of extra-judicial confessions, 134.
of judicial confessions, 135.
of probate of will, 237.
of judgments, 333-334.
of judgments in rem, 230.
of criminal judgments, 337.
of evidence to show value, 293.
of recitals in an acknowledgment, 189, 192.
of deeds as evidence, 307.
of the presumption of a grant, 340.
of the answer of a hostile witness, 503.
CONCLUSIVENESS OF ADMISSIONS, 116-11&
(see Estoppel.)
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS:
evidence of value of land at, 18.
right to open and close in, 393.
CONDITION :
photographs to show, 59, 60.
physical condition, inspection by jury to show, 402-495.
of things by inspection, 60-63.
presumption of continuance of, 349.
of highways, machinery, etc., evidence to show, 269-273, 291.
of mind, evidence to show, 285-288.
of parties or subject-matter, relevancy of, 18, 20.
of culverts, evidence to show, 270, 389.
of body, 383.
of railroad, evidence to show, 288.
CONDITIONAL CONTRACT:
proof of, under allegation of absolute contract, 40.
INDEX. 592
References are to pages.
CONDITIONAL DELIVERY:
of deed, may be shown, 315.
CONDITIONAL PARDON :
effect of, 454, 456.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CONTRACT IN WRITING:
when oral, may be shown, 311.
CONDONATION OF ADULTERY :
in divorce proceedings, burden of proof, 890.
CONDUCT:
presumptions from,_12, 298, 814, 315.
as estoppel. 111, 118-123.
CONDUCTOR OF RAILROAD CAR:
his admissions not binding on company, 103.
duty of, evidence to show, 288.
CONFEDERATE (see Conspiracy).
CONFESSIO JURIS :
evidence of, is inadmissible, 58.
CONFESSIONS :
definition and classification, 134, 125.
to be regarded with caution, 125, 136.
voluntary character of, ,126-138.
when voluntary ; inducements offered, 128, 139.
need not be spontaneous, 129-131.
preliminary examination, 131-133.
extra-judicial must be corroborated, 138, 134
conclusive character of judicial confessions, 135.
persons offering inducements, 135, 136.
of persons other than defendant, 136.
of conspirators, 136, 137.
of treason, 137, 564.
(see also Admissions; Declarations; Privileged Communica-
tions; Reference; Silence.)
CONFESSION aNd AVOIDANCE:
burden of proving in plea of, 383.
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT:
after dissolution of firm by partner, 93.
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS (see Privileged Communications).'
CONFIDENTIAL OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, 106.
CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS:
presumption of undue influence from, 389.
CONFINEMENT:
of witnesses, 414,
CONFLICT OF WITNESSES:
is not impeachment, 501.
38
59 i INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
CONFRONTING THE WITNESSES:
before interstate commerce commission, 496.
constitutional right of, 495.
evidence of deceased witnesses, 495.
evidence received by interpreter, 495.
absence of witness caused by accused, 496.
riglit is reciprocal, 496.
(see also Taking the View.)
CONGRESS:
acts of, how proved, 208.
CONJECTURE:
as a basis for hypothetical questions, 273L
CONNECTING EVIDENCE:
when alleged to be irrelevant, 16.
CONNECTION OF WRITINGS:
parol evidence to show, 308, 309.
CONSCIOUSNESS :
of guilt, 136-128.
(see also Admissions ; Confessions ; Silencel)
of danger, as affecting confessions, 131-138,
of deceased persons, 146.
CONSENT:
to alterations, when implied, 180.
CONSEQUENCES:
natural, when presumed to be intended, 361, 363.
CONSIDERATION:
defined, 306.
must be proved strictly, 40, 41.
parol evidence of, 305-307.
presumption of, 346.
burden of proof to show validity of, 383.
payment of, in a parol sale of land, 397.
may be shown by parol, 403.
illegality of, may be shown, 305-307.
CONSPIRATORS:
declarations of, 94-96.
confessions of, 134, 135.
CONSTITUTION :
judicial notice of, 373, 374
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT :
of accused, to have compulsory process, 410, 411,
CONSTRUCTION:
of machinerj', evidence to show, S90.
INDEX. 595
Beferenoes are to pages.
CONSTRUCTION OF WRITINGS :
distinguished from their interpretation, 301, 303.
definition, 303.
liberal and strict construction, 303.
province of jury, 308.
adherence to former construction, 304
foreign records, 336,
contracts and wills contrasted, 337.
of affidavits, 530.
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS :
parol evidence to establish, 313.
by gift in wiil, 328.
CONSUL:
certificate of, to show foreign law, 313,
may testify to foreign law, 313.
CONTEMPORANEOUS CHARACTER :
of res gestae, 77.
of writings to I'efresh memory, 478, 479.
CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITINGS:
incorporation of, by reference, 308, 309.
CONTEMPT:
expert witness cannot be committed for, if refusing to testify without
compensation, 377. *
non-attendance of witness, when, 419.
attachment in cases of, 419.
evidence to show, 419, 430.
wilful delay no excuse, 420.
by deponent, 430.
power of congress to commit for, 433.
in equity, 433.
power of ai'bitrators to commit for, 407.
non-attendance of witness, when not, 410.
of witness remaining in court, 467.
CONTESTED ELECTIONS:
judicial notice of, 370.
CONTINUANCE, FOR ABSENCE OF WITNESSES:
affidavit to obtain, 536.
when granted, 416.
party must not be negligent, 416.
discretion of court to grant, 416.
stipulation to avoid, 416, 419.
witness must be material, 417.
witness must be procurable, 417.
evidence must not be cumulative, and must be probably true, 418.
in criminal trials, 418, 419.
party must show diligence, 417, 418.
596 INDEX.
Eefereneesare to pages.
CONTINUANCE, FOK ABSENCE OF WITNESSES (continued):
facts must appear in affidavit, 419.
language of affidavit, 419.
evidence admitted to avoid, impeachment of, 503.
(see Non-attendance.)
CONTINUED COURSE OF DEALING:
evidence of, to construe contract, 304.
CONTINUITY:
presumption of, 349.
CONTINUOUS SEIZIN :
presumption from, 339.
CONTRACT:
variance in proof of, 40.
parol evidence to vary, etc., 301.
impeaching validity of, 304, 305,
impeaching consideration in, 305, 306.
alteration of, burden of proof, 387.
right to open and close in actions on, 390.
for default of another under statute of frauds, 403.
under statute of frauds, 397-404.
to make will, must be in writing, 406.
(see Alterations ; Consideration, etc.)
" CONTRACT IN ISSUE : "
defined, 441.
CONTRACTS AND RECEIPTS:
distinguished, 310.
CONTRACTS IN WRITING:
best evidence of, 53-54
CONTRACT OF HIRING:
proof of, 40, 41.
CONTRADICTION:
of confessions, 134.
does not render admissions incompetent, 115.
of one's own witness incidentally, 501.
by usage, 316, 317.
of recitals, 304-306.
of expert, by text-books, 375.
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS:
as in showing admissions, 115.
proving, to impeach witness, 507.
laying foundation for, 508.
the rule in the Queen's Case, 508.
time and place of, must be stated, 508.
evidence on former trial, 508.
when forgotten, mode of proof, 509.
INDEX. 697
Beferences are to pages.
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS (continued):
when denied, mode of proof, 509.
in affidavits and depositions, 509, 510.
impeaching affidavits by, 510, 511.
when in writing it must be shown, 510, 511, .
in writing, denial of, 511.
as to irrelevant matters, 511.
coniirmatoi-y statements to rebut, 511.
confirmatory statements to show bias, 512.
explaining on redirect examination, 486,
of accused, may be shown, 497.
CONTRADICTORY WRITINGS:
reconciling by parol evidence, 308,
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE:
burden of proof, 388.
must be pleaded, 46.
CONTROVERSY (see Ante Litem Motam):
definition of, 156.
declarations must precede, 156.
declarant must have knowledge. l57.
knowledge of controversy will bo presumed, 157,
declarations made to prevent, 158. <
CONVENIENCE :
of witnesses, change of venue for, 416.
CONVERSATION:
to explain intention, entire statement of, interpreted, 66, 111, 353.
through telephone, 132, 123.
signs as, 453:
evidence to show understanding of, 268, 269.
referred to in a writing, 307.
CONVERSION:
burden of proof in, 389.
CONVEYANCES:
acknowledgment of, 187-193,
by corporation, 185.
when unstamped, 311.
parol evidence to vary, 300.
presumption of delivery of, etc., 345.
CONVEYANCERS :
confidential communications to, 353,
as witnesses to handwriting, 203.
judicial notice of customs of, 373.
CONVICT:
as witness, continuance in case of, 416,
598 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
CONVICTION OF CRIME :
admissibility of, as evidence, 357.
to prove fact of conviction, 338.
suing for exoneration, 238.
iofamous crime, wliat is, 454
incompetency caused by, 454.
effect of pardon, 454.
wlien pardon of, is conditional, 454.
absolute incompetency caused by, 457.
when an objection to credibility, 458.
mode of proving, 458.
what may be shown, 459.
may be shown by questioning accused, 497.
primary evidence o^ 517.
questions put to witness to show, 518.
when renders affidavit incompetent, 536,
COPIES:
when receivable as secondary evidence, 48, 49.
of statutory laws, 309-311.
of legislative acts, 208.
as primary evidence of written admissions, 115.
use of, to refresh memory, 479, 480.
. (see Exemplified Copies ; Public Eecords, etc.)
COPIES, CERTIFIED (see Certificates).
CORONER'S INQUEST:
evidence taken at, cannot be used subsequently it a witness is missing,
169.
examination of accused at, 133.
CORPORATION :
presumption of continuance of, 350.
execution of conveyance by, 185.
when bound by admissions, 103.
their members, when incompetent as witnesses at common law, 437,
affidavits by officer of, 527.
CORPORATION CHARTERS:
judicial notice of, 87&
CORPORATION RECORDS:
right to inspect, 207.
primary evidence of, 54.
CORPUS DELICTI:
order of proof of, 16.
confession aa proof of, 133, 135.
in passing counterfeit money, 134
CORRECTNESS :
of records, when presumed, 354.
INDEX. 699
Beferences are to pages.
CORRESPONDENCE :
declarations of pedigree in, 73.
familiarity with handwriting derived from, 197.'
CORROBORATION :
of extra-judicial confessions, 133,. 134.
required in the case of ancient writings, 151, 153.
required of plaintiff in equity, 430, 431.
of witness, by showing former statements, 511,
to show bias, 512.
of evidence of impeached witness, 514
required in trial for perjury, 562.
CORROBORATION OF ACCOMPLICES:
mode and extent of, 463, 463.
when required by statute, 464.
in case of felonies, 463.
in case of misdemeanor, 463.
must tend to show guilt, 464.
question for jury, 464.
question for court, 464.
by confession of accused, 464
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE:
defined, 3.
COSTS:
where amendment is allowed, 45.
COUNSEL:
when taken excludes declarations, 77.
competency of, as witnesses, 446.
may state testimony of absent witness, 173.
(see also Privileged Communications.)
COUNTERFEIT MONEY :
presumptions from possession of, 342, 343.
corpus delicti of issuing, 134.
COUNTERPARTS :
their use and effect as evidence, 49.
COUNTIES:
judicial notice of, 368, 369.
admissions of inhabitants of, 99.
COURSE OF TRADE :
presumption from, 346.
COURT, CONTEMPT OF (see Contempt; Non-attendance op Wit-
ness).
COURTS :
presumptions as to their jurisdiction, 353-356.
records of (see Public Recordsji
600 INDEX.
Beferenoes are to pages.
COURTS NOT OF RECORD:
proving their proceedings, 221.
COURT ORDERS :
as evidence of reputation, 161.
CRAMPED HANDWRITING:
testimony of expert to, 204.
CREDIBILITY :
of circumstantial evidence, 8.
of admissions, 114, 115.
of dying declarations, 144.
of private entries, 215.
of expert evidence, 276.
as affected by interest, 434-437.
of evidence, is for jury, 473.
of evidence of insane person, 453.
of the evidence of the accused, 496.
impeachment of, 500-524
CRIME:
conviction of, when admissible, 518.
(see Conviction ; Infamous Crimes.)
CRIMINAL CONVERSATION:
incompetency of husband and vpife, 248.
CRIMINAL INTENT:
relevancy of evidence of similar acts, 21.
presumptions of, 361-363.
CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS :
operation and effect of, 337.
CRIMINAL TRIALS :
variance in, 43-46.
exhibition of articles to the jury in, 61.
competency of wife in ti-ial of husband, 245.
burden of proof in, 384.
right to open and close, 394.
fees of witnesses in, 410, 411.
recognizance to secure attepdance of witness in, 414
change of venue, for convenience of witnesses, 416.
continuance in, for absent witnesses, 418, 419.
indictment not evidence in, 490.
CRIMINATING ARTICLES:
illegally obtained from the accused, 61.
CRIMINATION:
by writing name, 200.
CROPS:
farmer as witness to value of, 892.
growth, etc., judicial notice of, 366, 367.
sale of, when growing, 397, 398.
INBEX. 601
Beferences are to pages.
CROSS-EXAMINATION :
as to contents of writing, 51.
utility of, 64, 400.
admissions made on, 107.
as to voluntary nature .of a confession, 187,
necessity of opportunity for, 170.
of wituesses, to handwriting, 198-300.
party may be asked to write his name on, 200.
of expert, 372, 273, 375.
right to, when exists, 481.
of witness, producing writing, 481.
waiver of right to, 481.
by intervening party, 481.
confined to matters brought out on direct, 481.
value of i-apidity in, 481.
evasive answers on, 483.
as to irrelevant matters, 483.
discretion of court, 483.
motion to strike out by party denied right of, 483.
questions affecting credibility, 483.
questions on, to ascertain memory, knowledge, etc., of witness, 483.
prolongation of, 483, 484
repetition of questions on, 484.
collateral facts on, 484.
testing truthfulness of witness on, 484
conclusiveness of, 484.
when witness may repeat testimony on, 483.
impeaching on, 485.
showing hostility of witness on, 485, 486.
right of accused to, 498.
irrelevant questions tQ accused on, 498.
writing by accused on, 498.
making adverse witness one's own by, 501.
disgracing questions on, 517.
CRY:
of pain, admissibility of, 68.
CULVERT :
evidence to show condition of, 370, 389.
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE:
defined, 3.
on recalling witness, 487.
CURABLENESS :
opinion as to, 379, 280.
CUSTOMS (see Usage) :
judicial notice of, 373.
of foreign countries, proof required, 373.
602 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
DAMAGES:
evidence of, 293, 293.
actions to recover, burden of proof, 388.
when admitted, burden of proof, 383.
when unliquidated, burden of proof, 889.
when unliquidated, right to open and close, 890-393.
when liquidated, right to open and close, 393, 393.
DAMPNESS :
of walls, its cause, 390.
DATE:
of birth, 80.
evidence of, 365.
of contracts, may be varied, 314
of erasures, 183.
of delivery of deed, 845.
relevancy of evidence to fix, 30.
DATE OF DEATH :
presumption of, 857.
judicial notice of, 870, 371.
DATE OF WRITING :
testimony of expert to decipher, 204.
may be supplied or explained by parol, 307, 3l4
presumed correct, 314.
DAY OF WEEK :
judicially noticed, 305.
DEADLY WEAPON:
presumption from deliberate use of, 861, 363.
DEAF MUTES, AS WITNESSES :
common-law incompetency of, 453.
their present competency, 453.
may give testimony in writing, 453.
or by signs, 453.
DEALERS :
as expert witnesses to value, 293.
DEATH :
family reputation as evidence of, 75.
sense of approach of, 138-141.
of declarant, necessary to admit reputation, 155.
of declarant against interest, 165.
of subscribing witness,' 194.
effect of on confidential communication, 348.
physician may testifj' to —
probable cause of, 378, 379.
probable time of, 380.
probable means of, 381.
condition of body at, 383.
INDEX. 603
Keferences are to pages.
DEATH (continued):
presumption of, from absence, 356.
of one having fixed abode, 357.
date of. 357.
presumption of, without issue, heira, etc., 358,
evidence of report of, 358.
in common disaster, 358, 359.
presumption in case of, vyhen caused by use of a deadly weapon, 331,
363.
incompetency of interested witness in case of, 435-445.
DEBT:
presumption of payment of, 347.
DEBTOR:
admissions of, when binding on surety, 99l
DECEASED MEMBER OF FAMILY:
his declarations, 73.
DECEASED PERSONS:
declarations of, 90, 155, 165.
dying declarations of, 138-147.
(see Personal Transactions with Deceased.)
DECEASED WITNESSES (see Absent Witnesses).
DECEIT:
writings obtained by, 177.
DECEPTION:
confessions procured by deception, 130.
DECK LOAD:
safety of, 289.
DECLARATIONS:
as evidence of marriage, 54.
• of bodilj- or mental feelings, 68-71.
constituting a part of the res gestae, 74-80.
constituting pedigree, 71-74.
when self-serving, 111-113.
of general reputation, 153-161.
of testator, when admissible, 333.
(see also Admissions; Dying Declarations.)
DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST, 163-166.
(see Stranger's Declarations.)
DECLARATIONS OF TRUST :
under the statute of frauds, 400.
DECOY LETTERS, 177, 178.
DEDICATION :
evidence of reputation to prove, 161.
DEDIMUS (see Deposition and Letters RoaATORT)i
604 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
DEEDS :
pedigree in, 73.
as evidence of reputation, 161.
destruction of, 178.
fraudulent alterations of, 180.
blanks in, 180.
unrecorded, when valid, 188.
acknowledgment of, 188-193.
presumption as to alterations in, 181.
incorporation of, by reference, 308, 309.
authority to execute must be under seal, 403.
(see Delivery.)
DEEDS, PROOF OF (see Ancient Documents).
DE facto OFFICIALS:
their appointment and tenure, 55.
may take acknowledgments, 188.
DEFEASANCE :
of mortgage, may be shown by parol, 333.
DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVITS:
amendment of, 528.
DEFENDANT:
when he may open and close, 390, 391.
when competent for or against each other —
in civil cases, 437, 438.
in criminal oases, 483, 434.
in equitj', answer, when evidence for him, 430, 431,
answer as admissions, 109.
DELAY:
as excluding declarations, 77.
presumption from, 341.
estoppels from, 338-340.
DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD:
presumption from, 513-514.
DELIBERATION:
as shown by writing, 300.
DELIBERATION IN HOMICIDE:
declarations to show, 76.
DELIVERY (see also Deeds; Date, etc.):
of deed, parol evidence to show, 305.
of deed, when presumed, 345, 346.
evidence to rebut presumption, 315.
DEMAND:
as evidence of value, 393.
DEMEANOR:
evidence to show, 34, 870.
INDEX. 605
Beferences are to pages.
DEMONSTRATION :
defined, 3, 10.
DEMUERER:
to bill in equity ; its effect, 433.
DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE :
in civil cases, 549.
in criminal trial, 550.
DENIAL:
of right to open and close, 393.
when refusal to deny is an admission, 113.
DEPARTMENTAL REGULATIONS:
judicial notice of, 870.
DEPOSITION :
non-production of, its eiTeCt, 16.
witness may be released on giving, 414.
when obtainable to avoid continuance, 416.
of insane persons, 453.
definition and character of, 539, 530.
mode of procuring, 5-31, 533.
statutes construed ; the certificate, 533.
objections to, 533, 534.
use of depositions as evidence, 534.
equitable bills to perpetuate testimony, 535.
impeachment by contradictory statements, 510, 511,
DEPUTY-SHERIFF:
admissions of, binding on sheriff, 99.
DERAILMENT OF RAILROAD TRAINS, 388.
DESCRIPTION:
when ambiguous, parol evidence to explain, 331.
DESIGN:
to mislead, in estoppel, 131.
DESTITUTION :
evidence to show, 869.
DESTRUCTION :
of deed by stranger, effect of, 178,
of deed by party, effect of, 178.
DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE :
presumption from, 343, 344.
DESTRUCTION OF WRITING:
must be shown, 183.
oath of party to show, 188.
whether shown, a judicial question, 184.
preliminary proof necessary, 184
search for writing must be shown, 184,
lost instrument, in hands of bona fide holder, 184,
606 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
DETAILS:
opinion of witness, with, 268, 269.
refreshing memory, 477-479.
DEIECTIVES:
evidence obtained by, 5, 178.
DETENTION:
of witnesses, 414.
DEVELOPMENT OF LAW, 1.
DEVIATION :
by witness in returning from court, 432.
DEVISEES :
admissions of, not binding on co-devisees, 91.
bound by admissions of the testator, 89.
DIAGRAMS (see Maps).
DIARY OF SURGEON:
entry in, as evidence, 80.
DIRECT EVIDENCE:
definition of, 6.
may be disregarded by the jury, 13.
as a basis for presumptions, 335, 836, 337.
DIRECT EXAMINATION:
distinguished from cross-examination, 463.
mode of conducting, 469.
leading questions on, 470.
assuming questions on, 470.
when leading questions are allowed, 471,
answers on, may be in narrative form, 471.
questions by the court on, 471-473.
leading questions on, 474, 475.
disgracing questions on, 516.
DIRECTING A VERDICT:
when it may be done, 28.
on prima facie case, 383.
DIRECTION OF BLOW:
evidence to show, 270.
DIRECTORS :
admissions of, when binding —
on co-directors, 91.
on corporation, 103.
"DIRECT ROUTE:"
of travel, defined, 410.
DISASTERS :
presumption of death in, 358.
inhex. 607
Beferences are to pages.
DISCHARGE :
of writing, may be shown by parol, 313-314.
of witness from arrest, 431.
DISCHARGE OF PRISONER:
how proved, 316.
DISCLAIMER:
of attorney by client, 358.
DISCOVERY:
by defendant, made in equity, 431-483.
DISCOVERY OF BOOKS AND PAPERS:
how obtained, 175.
DISCREDIT:
error to cast, on expert testimony, 376.
DISCREPANCIES :
reconcilement of, 33.
DISCRETIONARY POWER:
to allow amendments, 46.
DISCRETION OF COURT:
right to open and close in, 394, 895.
to grant continuance —
in civil trial, 416.
in criminal trial, 418.
to recall witness, 487.
to decide on necessity for depositions, 539.
over cross-examination, 484.
to permit disgracing questions, 517.
to limit number of witnesses, 563.
defined and distinguished, 566, 567.
DISEASE:
evidence by expert, 379.
curability and character of. 880.
simulation of, 380.
proper treatment of, 881, 383.
evidence of, by non-expert witness, 282,
DISGRACING QUESTIONS:
rule when relevant, 516.
as to irrelevant matters, 516.
in the cross-examination, 516.
discretion of court to admit, 517, 519.
protecting the witness from, 517.
as to specific facts, 517.
must not be too remote, 517.
to show prior conviction of witness, 517, 518.
form of, 518.
608 INDEX.
Beferenoea are to pages.
DISGRACING QUESTIONS (continued):
in trial for rape, 518.
answer to, when not conclusive, 518.
to show habits, occupation and social surroundings of the witness, 518.
protection from, 519.
DISOBEDIENCE (see also Non-attendance):
by a witness, 407, 419, 430.
excused by his poverty, 410.
to subpoena dwoes teoian, 413, 413.
evidence to show, 414.
DISPOSITION 07 A PERSON:
evidence to show, 369-371.
relevancy of proof of, 21.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS, 333.
DISPUTED WRITINGS:
primary evidence of, 51, 53.
testimony to genuineness of, 195-197.
proof of, by comparison, 300-304.
DISQUALIFICATION :
of witnesses (see Absent 'Witnbsses)l
DISSEIZIN :
presumption arising from, 839.
DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP:
power of partner to bind firm after, 93.
DISTANCES :
judicial notice of, 368.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
must not obstruct witnesses, 415.
"DOCKET:-'
definition of, 831.
"DOCUMENT:"
defined, 175.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE :
presumptions from possession of, 344.
(see also Poblio Records ; Private Writings.)
obtained by subpoena duces tecum, 411-413.
evidence of contents of, inadmissible against representative, 441.
(see Statute op Frauds.)
DOCUMENTS :
admissible as a part of the res gestae, 78-86.
when ancient, 14S-153.
INDEX. 609
Eeferenoes are to pages,
domicile::
declarations to show change of, 76,
not provable by reputation, 157.
presumption of continuance of, 330.
absence from, presumption created by, 336-358.
surviving party may testify to, 441.
of deponent, evidence of, 5S3.
DOUBT :
expression of, by witness, 367.
(see Reasonable Doubt.)
DRAINS :
evidence to show condition of, 370, 289.
DRUGS :
possession of, intended to procure an abortion, 385.
judicial notice of, 373.
DRUNKENNESS, 269.
' (see Intoxication.)
DUCES TECUM. SUBPCENA :
when it issues, 411.
language of must be certain, 413.
to produce articles or memoranda to refresh memory, 413.
power to issue, whence derived, 413.
excuses for disobedience to, by public or private officials, 413.
DUPLICATE :
of will, may be shown, 338.
DURATION: '
opinion evidence to show, 367,
DURESS :
in procuring writing, may be shown by parol, 805.
rendering confession inadmissible, 137, 138.
DUTY:
presumption of performance of, 349.
non-performance of, burden of proof, 387-389.
negligent performance of, burden of proof, 389.
DYING IffiCLARATIONS :
defined, 138.
necessity for religious belief of deceased, 138.
made under sense of approaching death, 139.
proof of sense of death, 139.
by his own statements, 140.
subsequent expectation of recovery, 140.
admissible only in cases of homicide, 141,
time intervening before death occurs, 141,
dying declarations and res gestce distinguished, 148,
credibility and weight of, 144.
39
610 INTlEX.
References are to pages.
DYING DECLARATIONS (continued):
in cases of alibi, 143.
form of the dying declaration, K5.
influence of a narcotic, 145
by signs, 145, 146.
in writings, 140.
language of, 146. '
untruthfulness of, 147.
not admissible in civil cases, 145.
contemporaneous deaths, 145.
witness may state substance of, 147. '
(see also Declarations.)
E.
EASEMENTS:
presumption of grant of, 340.
agreement to create, must be in writing, 397.
EARNINGS :
of expert witness, evidence inadmissible, 275.
EFFECT:
of what was said, 269.
probability of future, 378-280.
opinion evidence to show, 208.
EJACULATIONS :
admissibility of evidence to show, 68,
ELECTIONS :
judicial notice of, 369, 370.
EMINENT DOMAIN:
right to open and close in proceedings in, 393.
EMPLOYEES :
of corporations, declarations by, 102.
EMPLOYEES' ENTRIES:
as evidence, 81-85.
ENDORSEMENT (see Indorsement).
ENGINEER:
his admissions not binding on railroad company, 102.
ENJOYMENT:
evidence of, to corroborate reputation, 155.
presumptions from, when continuous, 339, 340.
ENTRIES :
which are a part of the res gestce. 78-80.
as declarations against interest, 163, 165, 160.
(see Stranqeh's Declarations.)
EQUITABLE ESTOPPELS, 119-133.
INDEX. 611
References are to pages.
EQUITY:
jurisdiction of, as influenced by the statute of frauds, 398.
answer of defendant in, 429-433.
bills in, to perpetuate testimony, 534, 535,
EQUITY, COURTS OF:
proving their records, 221.
EQUIVOCAL ACTS:
declarations to explain, 76.
ERASURES :
presumptions as to date, 183.
expert testimony to, 204.
(see Alterations.)
ERROR, WRIT OF (see Appeals ; Writ op Erhoe),
ESCAPE:
evidence of attempt to, when relevant, 23.
as a confession, 124.
ESSENTIAL DESCRIPTION:
matter of, 36, 37.
ESTOPPEL:
by awards, 110.
by pleadings, 107-109, 117.
by attorney's admissions, 105.
by judicial admissions, 117, 118.
defined, 118-120.
• intention of party estopped, 121, 122.
in pais, 119.
by record, 119.
to deny genuineness of handwriting, 187, 197.
by recitals in certificate of acknowledgment, 189, 193.
by returns, 229.
by judgments, 230, 233-235.
by deed, 307.
from lapse of time, 341,
by silence, 341.
E;VASIVE PLEA:
• does not give right to open and close, 393,
EVENT:
interest in the, what constitutes, 428, 429.
EVIDENCE DEFINED, 2.
EXAMINATION :
by physicians, 378, 297, 29a
by jurors in and out of court, 492-495.
of experts, 271-273.
of witnesses, to prove writing, 198-300,
of persons by the jury, 493-495.
(see also Real Evidence.)
612 INDBX.
lleferences are to pages.
EXAMINATION OF BOOKS :
when binding as admissions, 113.
primary evidence of result, 58.
EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF (see Physical Examination).
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES :
order for witnesses to withdraw from court-room, 466-468.
direct examination and cross-examination distinguished, 468.
refusal to testify, when a contempt ; employment of interpreter, 468,
469.
mode of conducting direct examination, 469-471.
questions put by the judge or by members of tlie jury, 471-473.
leading questions, when allowable on direct examination, 474, 475.
responsiveness of answers, 476.
witness may refresh his memory by referring to a memorandum or
writing, 477-479.
character of the writing used to refresh memory of the witness, 479, 480.
cross-examination, its purpose and value, 480-483.
power of cross-examination ; its extent, 483-486.
redirect examination, 486, 487.
recalling witnesses, 487, 488.
receiving evidence out of court, 488-490.
taking the view by the jury, 490-492.
"real evidence;" physical examination by the jury in court; identi-
fication, 498^95.
right of the defendant in a criminal trial to confront the witnesses
against him, 495, 496.
the accused as a witness in a criminal prosecution, 496-499.
(see also Cross-examination.)
EXAMINATION, PRELIMINARY, 131-133.
EXAMINED COPIES:
defined, 219, 220.
EXCEPTION :
necessity for, 35, 539, 540.
waiver of, 541, 542.
EXCEPTIONAL DEMAND :
as evidence of value, 293.
EXCLAMATIONS:
evidence of, 68.
EXCLUDING WITNESSES:
from oourt-i'oom, 466-468.
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE:
when of slight force, 546.
when immaterial, 546.
when ground for a new trial, 548.
when error in, is cured in cross-examination, 546.
INDEX. 613
References are to pages.
EXECUTION:
of wills, 403-405.
of negotiable paper, when presumed, 346.
of deed, presumptions from, 341.
of ancient writing, need not be proved, 150.
EXECUTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
presumption from, 345, 846.
EXECUTIVE ACTS :
judicial notice of, 870.
EXECUTOR:
admissions of testator binding on, 89.
admissions of, 91.
exclusion of iutei-ested witnesses against, 486-445.
(see also Personal Teansactions.)
EXECUTORY COVENANTS AND CONTRACTS:
effect of material alteration in, 180.
EXEMPLIFIED COPIES:
defipition and use of, 319. 230.
when dispensed with, 323.
EXEMPTION:
of witnesses, 430-488.
(see Arrest ; Privilege.)
EXHIBITION IN COURT:
of persons, 493-495.
of articles, 60. r
of writings, 300-203.
EXHIBITS :
proof of, 205.
defined, 205.
EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT:
judicial notice of, 378.
EXONERATION :
party suing for, when may prove judgment, 288.
EXPECTATION OF LIFE :
may be shown by life tables, 218.
EXPEDIENCY:,
as a basis for presumptions, 835.
EXPENSES :
of witness, what allowed, 409.
(see also Mileage.)
EXPERIENCE :
when necessary for expert, 264, 265.
as ground for belief, 4
G14 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
EXPERIMENTS:
out of court, 296.
conditions must be x-eproduced, 296.
expert may make, 296.
operating machine in court, 898.
by jurors, not allowed, 488.
EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE :
definition, 264, 265.
matter of common knowledge; opinions of non-experts, when admis-
sible, 265-270.
expert evidencej wlien admissible, 270, 271.
competency and examination of experts, 271-274
cross-examination of experts ; use of scientific books as evidence, 275.
the weight and credibility of expert and opinion evidence, 376.
compensation of expert witnesses, 277.
physicians as experts ; cause of death, 278-280.
evidence of medical experts to show character of disease and blood-
stains ; expert evidence as to autopsies and malpractice, 280-282.
non-expert evidence upon a person's physical condition, 282, 283.
chemists as experts ; poisons. 283, 384.
expert evidence where sexual crimes have been committed, 284, 385.
expert and non-expert evidence upon insanity, 285-288.
mechanical experts, 288-291.
expert evidence as to value, 291-294.
underwriters as experts, 294, 295.
to show handwriting, 197, 198, 200, 203-205.
experiments in and out of court, 296, 297.
physical examination of the party by experts, 297, 298L
EXPERT WITNESSES :
number of, may be limited, 563.
EXPLANATION:
of alterations, 178-183, 204.
of ambiguity, 324.
of language, 316, 317.
EXPRESS ADMISSIONS (see Admissions).
EXPRESSIONS :
of bodily or mental feelings, 68-71.
EXPRESS TRUSTS: ♦
must be evidenced by writing, 312, 399, 400.
EXTENSION:
of contract in writing may be shown by parol, 313-314
EXTRA-JUDICIAL OATHS (see Oaths).
INDEX. 615
Beferences are to pages.
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS:
must be corroborated, 133.
substance must be repeated, 134.
their weight for the jury, 134.
completeness of, 134.
(see also Confessions.)
EXTRINSIC CIRCUMSTANCES:
parol evidence of, 321, 833.
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE (see Parol Evidbncb).
EYE-SIGHT:
evidence of coudition, 383.
F.
FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE:
of alibi, 13.
FACT:
definition of the word, 3.
statements to be proved as, 66.
question of, 37-35.
agreement as matter of, 387, 838.
conclusiveness of judgment as a, 283!
assumed in hypothetical questions, 270-373.
judicial notice of, 364 et seq.
peculiarly in knowledge of party, 386-388.
FACTS OF GEOGRAPHY:
proof of, 318.
judicial notice of, 368, 369.
FACTS OF HISTORY :
proof of, 817.
judicial notice of, 367, 368.
FACT, PRESUMPTIONS OF (see PrescmptionX
FAILURE :
to produce evidence, 343.
FAILURE OF ACCUSED TO TESTIFY:
no presumptions from, 499.
comments on, not permissible, 499.
when comments on allowed, 499.
FALSE CONFESSIONS, 135.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT:
evidence of character in action for, 25,
variance of proof in, 86.
action for, by witness arrested, 433.
616 INDEX.
References are to pages.
FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS:
meaning of, 512.
jury may disregard, 513.
corroboration may avoid, 514.
FAMILY BIBLES :
as pedigree evidence, 73.
FAMILY HISTORY:
of testator, 327-329.
FAMILY PHYSICIAN:
his testimony on insanity, 288.
FAMILY REPUTATION, 71-74.
(see General Reputation.)
FARMER: '
as witness, to value of crop. 292.
as witness, to quality of milk, 384.
FEAR:
as an element in inducing confessions, evidence to show, 126-129.
FEDERAL COURTS:
competency of witnesses in, 43.i.
mileage in, 408.
when bound by state laws, 374.
will notice judicially the constitution and laws of a state, 373.
FEELINGS :
declarations to show, 68-71.
FEES:
of witnesses (see Mileage).
FEES OF EXPERT WITNESS (see Compensation).
FELLOW-PRISONER :
confession made to, 131.
FELLOW-SERVANT :
entries made by, 85.
FICTION :
of a presumed grant, 339, 340.
FIELD-NOTES :
as primary evidence, 57, 218.
FILING:
of pleadings, when presumed, 354
of returns, necessity for, 238.
FINAL JUDGMENT:
defined, 332.
FIRE-ARMS:
exhibited to jury, 60, 64
FIRE EXPERTS, 394, 395.
INDEX. 617
Heferences are to pages.
FIRM BOOKS:
as evidence, 81-85.
FIXED SUM :
proof of, agreement to pay, 40.
FLAGS AND BANNERS:
priraavy evidence of inscription on, 54.
FLIGHT OF ACCUSED:
relevancy of, 33.
as confessions, 134
FLOODING LAND :
evidence of surveyor, 391.
FOOD:
whoU'soraeness of, 284
FOOT-PRINTS :
compulsory comparison of, 298.
FOREIGN CURRENCY:
• value of, 366.
FOREIGN JUDGMENT:
certification of, 223-225.
handwriting of certifying oflScial must be proved, 233.
seal must be proved, 236.
proof of, 225-227.
validity of, 238-240.
in rem, 238.
FOREIGN LAW:
books as evidence of, 313.
court may construe, 311.
question for jury, 211.
consul may testify, 313, 313.
attorney' may testify to, 313.
expert in, may testify, 312, 213.
presumptions as to, 349.
not judicially noticed, 376, 377.
FOREIGN NATIONS, SEALS, ETC.:
judicial notice of, 378.
FOREIGN RATE OF INTEREST:
not judicially noticed, 378.
FORGERY :
relevancy of evidence of possession of forged writings, 30.
proof of handwriting in trial for, 186.
witness may be asked to write in trial for, 200.
FORGETFUL WITNESS:
may be asked loading questions, 474, 470.
CIS INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
FORGETFULNESS OF WITNESS :
when admits evidence at prior trial, 169.
(see Rbfeeshing the Memory.)
FORGOTTEN FACTS (see Eefeeshing the Memory).
FORM :
of affidavits, 537, 528.
FORJIAL ALLEGATIONS, 38, 39.
FORMER JUDGMENT:
plea of, 236.
FORMER STATEMENTS:
to impeach witness (see CJontradictory Statements).
FOUNDATION:
for impeachment, 485.
for proving book entries, 79.
FRANCHISE :
evidence of reputation to show enjoyment of, 153.
FRAUD :
evidence to show, 7.
when allegation of creates an issue allowing evidence of character, 25.
facilitated by reception of hearsay evidence, 66.
as an element in estoppel, 121.
possession of writings obtained by, 177.
presence of, where writing is altered, 179.
acknowledgment obtained by, 189.
id obtaining judgment, may be shown, 230.
in execution of contract, may be shown by parol evidence, 305, 306.
in use of deed, parol evidence to show, 329.
in procuring depositions, 532.
presumption of, from failure to testify, when alleged, 344.
FRAUD. BURDEN TO SHOW:
in procuring will, 384.
in conveyance, on creditora, 389.
in conveyance, on grantor, 390.
FRAUD (see also Statute of Frauds).
FRAUDULENT ALTERATIONS, 179.
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS:
relevancy of evidence to show, 22.
FRIGHT:
of horse, evidence to show, 269.
FRUITS :
sale of growing, 397, 398.
FRUITS OF CRIME :
presumptions from possession of, 342, 343.
INDEX. 619
Befereuces are to pages.
FUTURE INTENTION:
decIauitioDs of, when an estoppel, 120, 131.
FUTURE VALUE :
evidence to show, 293.
FURNITURE :
evidence to show value of, 392, 893.
FURTHER CONSIDERATION:
parol evidence of, 306.
G.
GARMENTS:
exhibition of, to the jury, 61.
GASES :
testimony to show nature and effect of, 284.
GAZETTE :
oflScial, as evidence, 208.
(JENERAL DENIAL:
effect of, 88.
GENERAL REPUTATION;
adequate knowledge of declarant, 153, 154
■identity of declarant. 155.
death of declarant, 155.
date of declaration, 155, 156. 157.
evidence of reputation in the case of private rights, 157, 158.
traditionary evidence regarding private boundaries, 158, 159.
documents showing general reputation, 160, 101.
to prove marriage, 158.
to rebut presumption of death. 358.
impeachment (see Reputation fok Truth).
GENERAL RESULTS:
primary evidence of, 57.
GENERAL USAGE:
evidence to show, 316, 317.
GENUINENESS (see Handwriting) :
of handwriting, how shewn, 186-205.
by comparison, 200-204.
GENTLENESS:
of horse, opinion evidence of, 269.
GEOGRAPHICAL FACTS :
judicial notice of, 368, 369.
GESTURE:
dying declarations made by, 145, 146.
GIFT:
to trustee; burden of proving bona fides of, 389.
620 INDEX.
References are to pages.
GOOD CHARACTER OF ACCUSED:
when relevaut, 26.
GOOD FAITH:
relevancy of evidence to show, 30-24.
evidence of declarations to show, 67.
of witness, cross-examination to test, 483.
GOOD JOB:
meaning of, 290.
GOOD QUALITY:
evidence of, by comparisOQ, 297.
GOOD RISK:
to insure, 895.
GOOD SPIRITS:
evidence to show, 270.
GRAND JURORS:
confidential communications to, 257.
GRAND JURY:
refusal to testify before, 409.
GRANT:
presumption of a, 340.
GRANTEE :
when may take acknowledgments, 188.
character of his title, 180.
GRANTING A VIEW (see Taking a View).
GRANTOR :
judgment against binds grantee, 231.
admissions of, 89.
acknowledgment before, 189.
incapacity of, burden of proof, 387.
GRAVE-STONES :
inscriptions on, primary evidence of, 57.
GROWING TIMBER:
when a writing is necessarjf in selling, 397, 398.
GROUNDS OF BELIEF, 4, 5.
GUARANTIES :
parol evidence to vary, 301.
GUARANTOR:
his interest in the event, 439.
admissions of, 99.
GUARDIAN:
admissions of, 100.
INDEX. 621
Eeferences are to pages.
GUILT:
must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, 8, 9, 13.
burden of proof to show, 384-386.
GUN:
exhibition of, to jury, CO.
H.
HABEAS CORPUS;
to obtain discl)arge of witness from arrest, 421.
SABEAS corpus ad TESTIFICANDUM:
when employed to procure the attendance of a witness, 423,
HABIT:
of intemperance, 2(i9.
evidence to shovy, 270.
HANDCUFFS :
confession made by prisoner in, 127.
HANDWRITING:
defined, 185, 186.
mark as, 185.
of subscribing witness, 186.
proof of, by admissions, 186.
production of writing, when necessary, 186, 187,
denial of genuineness of, how made. 187.
proof, by acknowledgments, 187-192.
proof of, by subscribing witnesses, 192-194
proof by witnesses, 195-198.
proof by comparison, 200-204.
proof by testimony of experts, 204, 205.
mode of examining witness as to disputed writing, 198-200.
photographs as evidence of, 59.
HAPPINESS,:
evidence to show, 270.
HATRED :
opinion evidence to show, 270,
(see also Threats.)
HEALTH :
evidence of physician to show, 278.
evidence of non-expert witness, 283,
HEARING:
evidence of a person, 283.
HEARSAY:
definition, grounds for its rejection, 63-66.
statements to be proved as facts, 66-68.
expressions of bodily or mental feeling, 68-71.
pedigree, oral and written declarations, 71-74.
622 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
HEARSAY (continued):
declarations constituting a part of the res gestae, 74, 75.
requisites, 75.
must be illustrative and connected with main transaction. 75, 76.
must be contemporaneous, 77, 78.
entries as part of the res gestae and made by third persons, 78-80.,
entries against interest and entries which are part of the res gestae dis-
tinguished, 80, 81.
a party's own books as evidence, 81-86.
indorsements as part of the res gestae, 86, 87.
commissions, 88 et seq.
confessions, 124 et seq.
general reputation, 153 et seq.
dying declarations, 138 et seq.
ancient writings, 148 et seq.
witnesses absent or disqualified, 167-173.
in affidavits, 528, 529.
HEIR:
admissions of, not binding on co-heirs, 91.
bound by judgment against ancestor, 231,
when an mterested witness, 443.
presumption of death without, 858.
HERD-BOOKS :
as evidence, 275.
HEREDITAMENTS :
presumptions of grant, 339, 840.
HIGHWAY :
necessity for, evidence to show, 270l
reputation to show existence of, 153.
evidence to show condition of, 18.
HISTORICAL BOOKS :
as evidence, 217, 218.
HISTORICAL FACTS :
judicial notice of, 367, 368.
proof of, 217, 218.
HOLDING ELECTIONS:
judicial notice of, 370.
HOLIDAYS :
judicial notice of, 365.
"HOMESTEAD FARM:"
evidence to explain, 819.
HOMICIDE :
behavior of accused after, 24.
allegation of weapon in indictment for, 8?, 44
insanity as a defense to, SSl-SlS.
INDEX. 623
Hoferenoes are to pages.
HOMICIDE (continued) :
dying declarations in, 138-147.
relevancy of evidence in, 87.
burden of proof in, 384-386.
HOPE:
as an element in inducing confessions, 126-129,
HORSE:
disposition of, opinion as to, 269.
HOSTILE WITNESS :
impeachment of, by party calling, 502.
hostility and bias of, may be shown in direct examination, 503.
contradictory statements by, 503.
foundation for contradicting, 504.
may be asked leading questions, 474.
HOUSE :
evidence to show value of, 390.
HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE :
evidence to show value of, 291, 293, 393.
HOUSEKEEPER:
as witness, to show value of board, 393.
HUMAN BLOOD:
stains caused by, 381.
HUSBAND:
when bound by wife's admissions, 97, 98.
competency of as witness, 244, 245.
confidential communications, 345, 347-249.
statutory legislation, 245-347.
death of, its effect, 348.
as witnesses in issue of adultery, 248.
us witness to non-access, 849.
HYPOTHETICAL CASE:
stating to jury, 38.
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION :
defined, 372.
facts on which based, 273.
not based on conjecture, 273.
must assume and state material facts alone, 373.
may assume doubtful facts, 273.
in cross-examination, 274.
when employed to test skill of expert, 274.
length, 273.
may be put in writing, 273.
on insanity, 287, 288.
62 i INDEX.
Hefereuces are to pages.
I.
IDEM SONANS, 43.
IDENTIFICATION :
of third person making an admission, 115.
of speaker at telephone, 122, 123.
use of photographs for the purpose of, 39.
of prisoner's statement at preliminary examination, 133.
of deceased person whose declarations constitute reputation, 155.
by witnesses in court, 298.
of subject-matter of writing, by parol, 320.
of persons, by witnesses, 494, 495.
IDENTITY :
opinion evidence to show, 869.
of cause of action, to admit prior judgment, 234-236.
IDENTITY OF INTEREST:
as regulating admissions, 89, 90.
IDENTITY OF PARTIES:
required where evidence of missing witness is given at a subsequent
trial, 169, 170.
when judgment is relied on as estoppel, 233, 234.
IGNORANCE OF WITNESS:
when it admits contradictory statements or evidence of knowledge, 503.
when permitting leading questions, 474.
effect of, as evidence, 566.
ILLEGAL ARREST:
of witnesses (see Privilege op Witnesses).
ILLEGALITY:
of consideration, evidence of, 306.
ILLEGIBLE WORDS:
parol evidence to explain, 324
ILLNESS;
evidence of non-expert witness, 283.
of witness, ground for a continuance, 416.
ILLNESS OF WITNESS:
admits testimony taken at a prior trial, 169.
IMMORALITY :
of consideration, evidence of, 306.
of witness, may be shown to impeach, 505, 506.
"IMPEACH:"
definition of, 500.
INDEX. 625
Keferenoes are to pages.
IMPEACHMENT:
of accuracy of photographs, 59.
of confessions, 134.
of certificate of acknowledgment, 189, 192.
of foreign judgments, 235.
of domestic judgments, 240.
of expert by scientific book, 275.
of consideration by parol, 305-307.
of competency of interpreter, 469.
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES :
party cannot impeach his own witness, 500-502.
exceptions to the rule that a party vouches for his own witnesses, 502-
504.
how the adverse witness maybe impe.iched; general reputation for
veracity, 504-507.
impeachment by proving contrary statements or silence of witness on a
former occasion, 507-513.
falsus in nno, falsus in omnibus, 512-514.
evidence of general reputation of impeached witness, 514, 515.
privileges of witness ; questions disclosing pecuniary liability, 515, 516.
questions tending to disgrace the witness, 516-519.
questions calculated to expose the witness to a criminal charge, 519-532.
bias and prejudice of the witness, 522-524.
IMPERTINENT QUESTIONS:
refusal to answer, 469.
IMPLIED ADMISSIONS:
by conduct. 111.
by silence, 112, 113.
by inspection of books, 113.
(see also Admissions.)
IMPLIED CONFESSIONS, 124, 125.
IMPLIED CONTRACT:
allegation of an, 40.
IMPLIED MALICE, 362.
IMPLIED TRUSTS :
parol evidence to establish, 813.
not covered by statute of frauds, 400.
IMPOTENCY:
physical examination when alleged, 297.
IMPRESSIONS :
of witnesses, 268-270.
IMPRISONMENT:
of witness, to prevent attendance, 415.
IMPROPER ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE:
when immaterial, 544, 545.
40
626 INDEX.
Befereuces are to pages.
IMPROVEMENTS:
on land as a partial performance, 397.
INADEQUACY (see Consideration).
INCAPACITY:
of gi-antor, burden of proof, 387.
INCARCERATION:
of witnesses, 414.
INCIDENTAL IMPEACHMENT:
of witness, 501.
INCOMPETENCY:
of privileged communications, 343-360.
of accused as witness, 433.
INCOMPLETE WRITINGS:
parol evidence to fill out omissions, 307, 308.
INCORPORATION:
when proof of, required, 376.
INCORPORATION OF WRITINGS:
by reference, 308.
INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS:
presumption of grant, 339, 340.
INCREASE OF RISK:
evidence to show, 394.
INCRIMINATING QUESTIONS:
answer to, not compellable, 519.
" one link in chain of proof," 530.
details need not be shown, 530.
' belief of witness, 530, 581.
province of court, 530, 581.
witness may answer, 530.
to defendant in chancery, 530.
innocence of witness, not material, 530;
if witness waive privilege he must give details, 530l
when accused must answer, 531.
privilege from, is personal, 531.
answers to, cannot be used, 523.
if prosecution is barred, 533.
no presumption from refusal to answer, 533.
INDEBTEDNESS:
primary evidence of, 57, 58.
INDEPENDENT PAROL CONTRACTS:
may be shown, 810.
INDIAN TREATIES:
judicial notice of, 377.
INDEX. 627
Seferencea are to pages.
INDICTMENT!
allegation of weapon in, 38-44.
proof of and variance, 43-44.
when severable, 42.
for intimidating witness, 415.
is not evidence, 490.
instruction on, 490.
of service, admissibility of, 166.
INDORSEMENTS :
as a part of the res gestce, 86, 87,
parol evidence to vary, 301.
INDORSEE:
his incompetency to impeach note, 445, 446.
his admissions, 91.
INDUCEMENTS:
offered to procure confessions, 135, 136.
INFAMOUS CRIMES:
defined, 454.
common-law incompetency caused by, 454, 455.
pai'don of, as removing incompetency, 455.
conditional pardon, 456.
effect of full pardon, 456.
incompetency caused by, extent of, 456.
statutes relating to incompetency caused by, 457.
statutes construed, 458.
what crimes may be shown, 458, 459.
INFAMOUS PERSONS (see Falsus in Uno).
INFAMY:
of subscribing witness, 194v
INFANTS:
exhibition of, to jury, 492-495.
INFANTS, AS WITNESSES (see Childeen)l
INFERENCES:
inadmissible as evidence, 265-270.
INFERENCES OF FACT (see Presumptions),
INFIDELITY:
as disqualifying a witness, 451, 453,
INFORMATION AND BELIEF:
admissions based on, 115.
INFORMERS:
evidence of, 5, 178.
names of, cannot be divulged, 256.
INJURIES :
judicial notice of, 373.
non-expert evidence to show cause, etc., of, 383.
628 INDEX.
Heferenoes are to page^.
INK:
testing with cliemicals in court, 396.
evidence to show composition of, 284
INNOCENCE :
presumption of, 9, 337, 360, 361, 497.
presumption of life, 361.
IN REM :
foreign judgments in, 238.
domestic judgments in, 236, 237.
INSANITY:
not provable by reputation, 157.
declarations to show, 67.
subsequent insanity of witness, 169.
opinions of subscribing witness to, 194. ,
non-expert evidence to show, 285, 286.
witness must give facts, 285.
weight of evidence of non-expert witness, 286.
expert evidence on, 286.
wlien based on personal examination, 287.
when based on hypothetical question, 387, 288.
testimony by subscribing witnesses to will, 288.
of accused, permits involuntary physical examination, 298.
of testator, may be shown by parol, 328.
presumptions of, 350.
in homicide, 351.
evidence to show, 353.
McNaghteu's Case, 353, 358.
• burden of proving, in criminal trials, 385, 386.
burden of proving, in civil proceedings, 389.
simulation of, may be shown, 498.
incompetency of interested witnesses in case of, 435-445.
renders person incompetent as witness, 452, 526.
INSCRIPTIONS :
pedigree contained in, 73.
INSCRIPTIONS ON BANNERS:
primary evidence of, 55.
INSOLVENCY:
not provable by reputation, 157.
INSPECTION BY JURY:
to determine age, race and parentage, 492-495i
of writings, 200.
of articles, 60.
(see also Real Evidence.)
INSPECTION OF BOOKS :
when binding as admissions, 113.
INDEX. 629
Beferences are to pages.
INSPECTION OF RECORDS:
right to, 206.
mandamus to compel, 207.
of private corporations, 307.
rules regulating, 207.
INSTRUCTIONS :
on the evidence generally, 29-33.
on expert testimony, 276.
on the presumption of innocence, 361,
on the value of positive evidence, 565.
INSTRUMENTS:
possession of, intended to procure an abortion, 285,
INSTRUMENT IN WRITING:
best evidence of, 49. 50.
deBned, 175.
may be connected by parol, 308, 309.
INSUFFIOIENCY OF EVIDENCE:
defined, 30.
demurrer because of, 548.
INSULTING QUESTIONS:
put to witness, 519.
INSURANCE EXPERTS:
their testimony of risks and premiums, 294, 295.
INSURANCE POLICY-:
parol evidence to vary, 301.
burden of proof in actions on, 388.
INTENTION:
evidence of, 20-24.
evidence of declarations to show, 67.
declarations to explain, 76.
when deliberate, 800.
evidence of usage to ascertain, 816.
parol evidence to ascertain, 320-824.
of testator, evidence to ascertain, 335-329.
presumption of malicious intention, 361-368.
INTEREST:
declarations against, 80, 81.
stranger's declarations against, 163-16S.
of witness to handwriting, 199.
of accused, when a witness, 496.
of deponent, incompetency caused by, 583,
INTERESTED PERSONS:
their statutory incompetency as witnesses, 434-437.
630 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
INTERESTED WITNESSES:
reasons for their incompetency, 425.
their sources of knowledge, 435.
admissions of, 426.
when they become competent, 427-431,
their statutory incompetency, 442.
interest of, must bo pecuniary, 443.
when widow, heir, legatee is, 443.
when assignor is, 443.
how rendered competent, 444,
having adverse interests, 444.
exception to, must be promptly taken, 444
in case of death of agent of party, 444.
INTEREST IN THE EVENT:
what constitutes, at common law, 438, 429.
statutoi'y modification, 438.
INTEREST, RATE OF:
judicial notice of, 378.
INTERLINEATIONS (see Alterations).
INTERNATIONAL LAW :
judicial notice of, 372.
INTERPRETATION OF WRITINGS, 301-304
(see also Construction.)
INTERPRETER:
his intervention does not make evidence hearsay, 66.
admissions by employment. 111.
may state evidence of absent witness, 173,
confidential communications to, 353.
employment of, discretionary, 469.
witness may act as, 469.
by-standers may assist, 469.
employment of, in taking deposition, 533.
INTERROGATORIES :
sent with letters rogatory, 530.
not indispensable when reading deposition, 534
in bills in equity, 433, 433.
must be answered responsively, 433.
INTERVIEW (see ADitissiONs ; Conversation ; Parol Evidence, etc.).
INTIMIDATION :
of witnesses (see Obstructing the Attendance of Witnesses).
INTOXICATION :
confession procured from intoxicated prisoner, 130.
evidence to show fact of, 269.
of party to writing, 305,
INDEX. 631
Eeferenoes are to pages.!
INTOXICATING LIQUORS:
judicial notice of, 371.
INVALID DEED :
use of as evidence, 404
INVALIDITY:
of wi-iting, may bo shown by parol, 304-306.
of will, may be shown, 328.
"I. O. U.:"
meaning of, 819.
IRRELEVANCY:
motion to strike out for, 543.
when not error, 544.
IRRELEVANT "WRITINGS:
when admissible as standards of comparison, 200L
IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE (see Insanity).
IRRESPONSIVENESS :
of answers of witness, 476, 543.
ISSUE:
presumption of legitimacy of, 359.
presumption of death without, 358.
ISSUE OF FACT :
when for jury, 37 et seq.
J.
JAIL:
attendance of witness in, how procured, 433.
JETTISON:
necessity for, 289.
JOINT CONTRACTS :
remedies on, 236.
JOINT DEFENDANTS :
when competent as witnesses, 433, 434.
JUDGE:
his incompetency as a witness, 447.
his duty to certify to records, 224.
JUDGE'S NOTES :
to prove testimony of absent witness, 1731
JUDGES OP INFERIOR COURTS :
judicial notice of, 379.
JUDGE, PROVINCE OF, 27 et seq.
(see Peotincb of Judge.)
632 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
JUDGMENTS:
how proved, 318-231.
in equity, 331, 323.
of sister states, 333-335.
of foreign countries, 335, 336.
of surrogates' courts, 336, 227.
effect of, 230, 231.
finality of, 233.
conclusiveness of, 333.
identity of cause of action, 384-336.
judgments in rem, 336, 337.
in criminal trials, 337.
as facts, 237, 238.
foreign, their validity, 338-240.
of sister states, 241.
in bar, 343.
best evidence of, 50.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS :
of record, 104, 105, 107-109, 117.
JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS (see Confessions).
JUDICIAL DISCRETION:
defined, 566.
not personal caprice, 567.
JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE:
aiding, 380.
(see also Judicial Notice.)
JUDICIAL NOTICE:
judicial notice, 364, 365.
matter of common knovpledge, 330, 865-367.
historical facts, 367, 368.
geographical facts, 369. »
political facts ; elections, 370, 371.
scientific facts, 371, 373.
common and statutoiy law ; municipal ordinances and local and for-
eign laws, 373-378.
foreign nations, seals and acts, 378.
terms of court, records, rules of practice and judicial proceedings, 378-
380. '
JUDICIAL OFFICIALS:
communications to, 355.
JUDICIAL OATHS (see Oaths).
JUDICIAL RECORDS (see Public Records).
JURAT:
must show venue, when, 536.
must be signed and sealed, 538.
INDEX. 633
Beferences are to pages.
JURISDICTION:
presumptions of, 353-356.
of appellate courts, 557-561.
' lack of, may be shown, 330.
may be inquired into, 235.
judicial notice of, 379.
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS:
when presumed, 353-355.
JURORS :
private view by, 488.
communications to, out of court, 488, 489.
evidence received by, out of court, 489.
maps, law books, pleadings, etc., read by, 489.
articles examined by, in jury-room, 489, 490.
as witness if they know the facts, 489.
questions put by, 473.-
their oaths, 6.
confidential communications, 357.
may state testimony of absent witness, 173.
JURY:
offering evidence and examination of witnesses out of hearing of, 143,
538.
JURY, PROVINCE OF:
province of judge and jury, 37-33.
blended questions of law and fact, 33, 34.
preliminary facts bearing on admissibility, 34, 85.
over presumptions, 333-336.
JUSTICES' COURTS:
certification of their proceedings, 333.
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE:
incompetency of, as a witness, 447.
JUSTIFICATION :
of an assault, burden of proof, 390.
K.
KEROSENE:
judicial notice of explosive character of, 371.
KIND DEMEANOR:
opinion evidence to show, 369, 370.
KNOWLEDGE :
of party making entry, 79.
of reputation by the declarant, 155, 157.
of strangers, declaring against interest, 165.
of witness to handwriting, 198, 199.
of expert, 364, 265.
of absent witness, necessary for a continuance, 418.
of witness, cross-examination to test, 483.
634 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
L.
LABOR:
evidence of the value of, 291, 393.
LACHES:
in summoning witness, effect of, 416.
in failing to object to evidence, 540.
LAGER BEER:
judicial notice of its character as a malt liquor, 371.
LAMP:
evidence to show safety of, 384.
LAND:
evidence to Show value of, 17, 293.
evidence of flooding of, 291.
paitoership to buy and sell, 403.
wheo land is partnership property, 403.
contracts for sale of, what are, 397.
LANDLORD AND TENANT:
relationship of, primary evidence to show, 53.
LAND-OWNER:
wlien estopped, 130.
LANGUAGE :
of admissions, 116.
caution required in the use of, 136.
of witness subsequently missing, 171, 173.
of certificate of acknowledgment, 190.
of writing, its construction, 303, 303.
LANGUAGE OF AFFIDAVITS:
must not be vague, 539.
statute must be followed in, 539.
when scandalous, 529.
amending, 529.
LAPSE OF TIME :
presumptions from, 338-341.
lulRCENY:
variance in an indictment for, 43-44.
presumption of, from possession of stolen goods, 843, 343,
LATENT AMBIGUITIES :
parol evidence to explain, 322-335.
LAW AND FACT:
questions of, 37-35.
LAW BOOKS:
excluded from jury, 489.
LAWFULNESS :
presumption of, 349.
INDEX. 635
Beferencea are to pages.
LAW MERCHANT :
presumptions of, 349.
judicial notice of, 373.
LAW, PRESUMPTIONS OF (see Peesumptions),
LAW, STATUTORY:
proof of, 308.
LAYING FOUNDATION :
to prove contradictory statements, 508.
not necessary, when, 509.
LEADING QUESTIONS:
may be employed to obtain dying declaration, 145.
on direct examination, 470, 471.
when witness is hostile, 474.
when forgetful, 474, 475.
when ignorant, 474
on redirect examination, 487.
LEAK :
evidence to show cause, 289.
LEASE :
need not be produced to show rental value, 52.
as showing reputation, 161.
parol evidence to vary, 300.
oral contract to rebuild, to vary written lease, 311.
surrender or assignment of, must be in writing, 401.
LEDGERS:
entries in, as evidence, 85.
LEFT-HANDED PERSONS (see Direction of BlowX
LEGALITY :
evidence of, declarations to show, 07.
LEGAL TERMS :
judicial notice of their meaning, 365.
LEGATEE:
is bound by admissions of the testator, 8ft,
when an interested witness, 443.
LEGISLATIVE ACTS :
proof of, 208.
LEGISLATIVE BODIES:
power to summon witnesses, 423.
to commit for contempt, 423.
LEGISLATURE :
privileged communications, 356^
LEGITIMACY :
inspection of child by jury, 493l
presumption of, 859, 360.
636 INDEX.
Keferences are to pages.
LETTERS:
in cross-examining, must be shown to the witness, 51.
as standards of comparison, 300-204
when unanswered, are not admissions, 113. •
replies to, may be read, 114.
presumption from mailing, 347.
proof of (see Handwriting).
LETTER-PRESS COPY:
as evidence, 48, 49.
LETTERS ROGATORY:
defined, 530.
their use in equity, 580.
interrogatories therein, 530.
return of, 580.
to what courts issuable, 531.
notice to adverse party, 531.
e.'camination of witness under, 531.
_ certificate of examining magistrate, 531,
commissioner under, may issue subpoena, 408.
LEX FORI :
when applied, 349.
LIBEL:
question of, for jury, 39.
evidence of character in action for, 35.
right to open aud close in action for, 891,
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION:
defined, 802.
LICENSE :
burden of proof to show, 388.
parol evidence to vary, 301,
LIFE:
presumption of, 356.
LIFE INSURANCE POLICY:
e\'id6nce of physician in action on, 295,
LIFE TABLES:
to show expectation of life, 218.
LIMB:
exhibition of, to jury, to show injury, 493.
examination of, by physican, 297, 398.
LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES:
when erroneous, 561.
when permitted, 563.
LIMITATION. STATUTE OF:
presumptions from, 339.
INDEX. 637
Heferenoes are to pages.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES:
right to open and close in cases of, 393, 393.
LIQUORS, INTOXICATING:
judicial notice of, 870, 371.
LIS MOTA, 156.
(see also CONTEOVEKSy.)
LITHOGRAPHS :
■n-hen primary evidence, 49.
LOAN:
presumption of, arising from payment, 347.
LOCALITIES:
judicial notice of, 369.
LOCAL LAW:
judicial notice of, 374, 375.
LOCUS IN QUO :
taking the view of, 490 et seq,
LOG-BOOKS:
when evidence, 216.
LOITERING :
by witness, 423.
LOOSE SLIPS :
to refresh memory, 477-479.
LOST ARTICLES :
proof of the value of, 294
LOST RECORDS :
primary evidence of, 55.
LOST WRITINGS:
evidence to show contents, 183-185, 813.
(see Destruction of Writings.)
LUCID INTERVAL:
in insanity, parol evidence of, 338.
LUNATICS (see also Insanity) :
when incompetent as witnesses, 452, 453
incompetency of interested witnesses, 434,
M.
MACHINERY:
evidence to show condition and capacity of, 18, 366, 371, 390.
operation of, in court, 296.
MACHINISTS :
as expert witnesses, 390,
MAILING LETTER:
presumption from, 347.
638 INDEX.
Beferenoes are to pages.
MAILS:
placing decoy letters in, 178.
MAIL TIME.:
judicial notice of, 368, 370.
MALICE :
coui-t may define, 31.
declarations showing, 68, 76.
of client, cannot be shown by the declaration of his attorney, lOiS.
defined, 363.
presumption of, in criminal trials, 361, 363,
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION:
evidence of good character in, 35.
evidence of probable cause, 67.
burden of proof in, 387.
MALINGERING:
physical examination of party, 397.
MALPRACTICE :
physician may testify —
that treatment was or was not proper, 281.
but not as to defendant's diploma, 381.
or his general reputation, 380.
opinions as to medicine employed, 381.
may state customary mode of treatment, 381.
MANDAMUS:
to obtain inspection of records, 306.
to compel record or filing of paper, 307.
to compel sealing, 207.
to compel amendment of acknowledgment, 190, 191,
MANNER OF ACTING :
evidence to show, 370.
MAPS:
as evidence constituting a part of the res gestae, 80.
as evidence of reputation, 160.
as evidence of boundaries and distances, 317.
should be authenticated, 318.
used to explain evidence, 818.
incorporation of, in deeds by reference, 309.
wlien not in evidence, excluded from jury, 489.
MARK:
signature by, 185.
proved by witnesses, 185.
subscribing witness may sign by, 185.
name affixed to, 186.
MARKET REPORTS:
as evidence of value, 394.
indSx. 639
Beferences are to pages.
MARKET VALUE:
evidence to show, 293.
MARRIAGE:
primary evidence of, 54.
reputation as proof of, 158,
cohabitation as proof of, 158.
proof by register, 816.
annulment of, evidence in action for, 297, 298.
presumption of continuance of, 350.
MARRIED WOMAN :
her acknowledgment, 192.
(see Husband and Wife.)
MASON:
as an expert witness, 290.
MASTER IN CHANCERY:
may state testimony of an absent witness, 173.
" MATERIAL : "
defined, 14, 15.
MATERIAL FACTS:
judgment conclusive as to, 233.
MATERIALITY:
of absent witness, when it must be shown, 416.
of alterations, 179.
of evidence, must appear from offer, 588.
MATURITY OF CROPS :
judicial notice of, 366.
MAXIMS :
judicial notice of, 372.
McNAGHTEN'S CASE, 352.
MEANING:
of manifestations of feeling, 270.
of conversation, 269.
' of gesture, 270.
of technical terms, parol evidence to explain, 318L
MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE:
burden of proof on party having, 386-388.
MECHANICAL EXPERTS, 288-291.
MEMBER OF FAMILY:
declarations of, constituting pedigree, 73.
MEMORANDA :
in books, not admissible, 84.
as evidence, 86. •
made on writing, when an alteration, 179.
parol evidence of written memoranda, 308.
of judge's charge, may be read by jury, 489.
GiO INDEX.
References are to pages.
MEMORANDA, TO REFRESH MEMORY:
use of, 199, 477.
when evidence, 477, 478.
when not evidence, 477, 478.
must be contemporaneous, 479.
when copies may be used as, 480.
(see Refreshing the Memory.)
MEMORY:
its unreliability, 51.
refreshing memory of expert, 375.
refreshing memory of court, 380.
refreshing by leading questions, 475.
of witness, cross-examination to test, 483.
(see also Refreshing the Memory.)
MENTAL CAPACITY :
opinions of subscribing witnesses, 194.
MENTAL CONDITION:
declarations showing, 66-68, 329, 825.
MENTAL FEELINGS :
oral expressions of, 68-71.
MENTAL INCAPACITY :
evidence of declarations to show, 67, 322, 83.5.
when disqualifies witness, 452, 453.
(see Insanity.)
MENTION TO THIRD PARTIES (see Selp-servinq Statements).
MERCANTILE AGENCIES:
judicial notice of customs of, 373.
MERCANTILE AGENCY RATING:
best evidence of, 51.
MERCHANDISE :
evidence of value, 291.
"MERCHANTABLE HAY:"
evidence to explain term, 319.
MERCHANTS :
judicial notice of their customs, 373.
MERGER:
of oral stipulations m writing, 301.
MERITS :
judgment on, is final, 232.
MESSAGE OF THE EXECUTIVE:
judicial notice of, 370.
MICROSCOPIST:
evidence of, as to character of blood-stains, 381.
INDEX. 641
Beferences are to pages.
MIDWIFE:
physical examination by, in action to annul marriage, 297, 298.
MILEAGE OF WITNESSES:
when paid in two or more suits, 409.
payable to witness though he was not summoned, 409.
not payable to attorney, 409.
of federal officials, 409.
in criminal cases, 410.
may be r-ecovered from a party, when, 411.
vested right to, 411.
detained in custody, 415.
in federal courts, 408.
of a party when a witness, 408.
when taxable as costs, 409.
how estimated, 410.
MILITARY SERVICE :
attendance of witness in, how pi-ocured, 423^
MILK :
evidence to show its quality, 284.
MINER:
as expert witness, 291.
MINISTERS:
confessions to, not privileged, 130.
MINORITY:
determined by inspection of the jury, 492-495.
(see Age.)
MINUTI^:
summary or effect of, as observed by a witness, 268-270.
MISDESCRIPTION :
in wills, evidence in case of, 326.
MISNOMER:
in wills, evidence to explain, 326-329.
MISREPRESENTATION :
as an element of estoppel, 119.
MISSING WITNESSES (see Absent Witnesses).
MISTAKE:
as ground for avoiding an estoppel, 105.
that a will was executed by, may be shown, 328,
in a deed, may be shown by parol, 329.
MODE OF PROVING ADMISSIONS, 114
MODIFICATION:
of contract in writing, may be shown, 312-314
MONTH AND WEEK, DAYS OF:
judicial notice of, 365.
41
642 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
;M0NUMENTS:
primary evidence of, 55.
evidence of surveyor to identify, 291.
maps admissible to show, 309.
parol evidence to identify, 321.
MOON RISING:
judicial notice of, 371.
MORAL INSANITY, 353.
"MORE OR LESS:"
evidence to explain the term, 318.
MORTALITY TABLES:
judicial notice of, 366.
MORTGAGE:
parol evidence to vary, 800.
absolute deed may be shown to be, 329.
MORTGAGEE :
bound by judgment against mortgagor, 231.
MORTGAGOR:
oral agreement that mortgagor may remain in possession, 311.
MOTIONS :
affidavits to sustain, 526.
to suppress depositions, 533.
(see also Striking Out.)
MOTIONS OR GESTURES :
their meaning (see Deaf Mutes).
MOTIVE:
relevancy of evidence of, 20-34.
declarations to show, 67.
presumptions as to maliciousness of, 361-363.
of witness, explanation of, on redirect examination, 487.
of witness, cross-examination to test, 483.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS :
their records as evidence, 216.
admissions by inhabitants of, 99.
competency of their members as witnesses, 437.
MUNICIPAL COURTS:
proving their records, 331.
(see Justices' Courts.)
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES :
primary evidence of is required, 51.
statutory mode of proving, 313.
proof by certiBed copy, 313, 214.
power to enact, 314.
parol evidence to show a compliance with statute, 214
INDEX. 643
Eeferenees are to pages.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES (continued):
publication of, how proved; 214, 315.
in newspaper, 315.
in foreign language, 315.
judicial notice of, 375, 376.
MUTES, AS WITNESSES (see Deaf MutesX
MUTILATION:
of evidence, presumptions from, 843,
" MY CHILDREN : "
devise to, evidence to explain, 336.
N.
NAKED CONFESSION:
defined, 133.
NAME:
abbreviation of, 319.
when fox-gotten, 475.
of articles in trade, 317, 318.
witness may be asked to write his name, 300.
NARCOTIC:
dying declaration by party under influence of, 145,
NARRATIVE DECLARATIONS :
when inadmissible as admissions, 95, 96.
NATIONAL BANKS :
judicial notice of their existence, 366.
NATURAL CONSEQUENCES :
presumed to be intended, 361, 362.
NATURAL PHENOMENA:
judicial notice taken of, 366.
NATURAL SHOW OF FEELINGS, 6a
NATURALIZATION:
best evidence of, 50.
NATURE OF BUSINESS:
judicial notice of, 373.
NAUTICAL EXPERT:
evidence of, 289.
NAVAL SERVICE:
attendance of witness in, how procured, 43i
NAVIGABLE WATERS:
judicial notice of, 369.
NECESSARY EXPENSES:
of federal officials, as witnesses, 410.
644 INDEX.
Eeferences are to pages.
NECESSITY:
opinion evidence of non-experts, when admissible from, 268.
NEGATIVE:
burden of proof on party alleging, 386-389.
NEGATIVE TESTIMONY:
its admissibility, 565, 566.
NEGLIGENCE :
relevancy of evidence to show, 18.
is a question for the jury, 29, 291.
proper instructions as to, 33, 34.
opinion evidence of, 266, 267, 282.
of plaintiff, burden of proof, 388, 390.
of bailee, when admitting evidence of bailor, 429.
in management of railroad, 288, 289.
in management of ship, 289.
freedom from, burden of proof, 388, 390.
inspection by jury of injured person to show, 494
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS :
incompetency of parties to, as witnesses. 445, 446.
value of, 293, 294.
filling blanks in, 181.
parol evidence to vaiy, 301.
presumptions in favor of, 346, 347.
NEW CONTRACTS:
may be shown by parol, 306-308.
NEW ENGLAND TOWNSHIP:
admissions of inhabitants of, 99.
NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE:
materiality of, 554.
discretion of court, 554.
sufficiency must appear, 555.
diligence of party who oilers, 555, 556.
affidavits necessary in offering, 556.
must not be cumulative, 556.
must not be impeaching merely, 557.
NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENT:
may state testimony of absent witness, 173.
NEWSPAPERS :
as evidence, 208.
as evidence of public acts, 218.
NICKNAMES :
their use in indictments, 43.
NOD:
significance of, 269,
INDEX. 645
lEeferences are to pages.
NOISE:
opinions as to effect of, 269.
NOMINAL CONSIDERATION (see Consideration).
NOMINAL PARTY,:
admissions of, when binding, 100.
liis incompetency as a witness, 426.
(see also Parties and Interested Witnesse&)
NON-ACCESS :
when creating a presumption of illegitimacy, 360.
wife may testify to fact of, 349.
NON-ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES:
as ground for a continuance, 416-419.
procured by intimidation, 415.
commitment to prevent, 414.
I)Overty as an excuse for, 410, 411.
on whom subpoena is served, 407, 408.
attachment in case of, 410, 411.
may be shown by parol, 414.
when contempt, 419.
attachment in case of, 419.
clear proof must be made, 420.
affidavits to show, 420.
caused by delay, 420.
summoned to give deposition, 420,
NON-CONCLUSIVENESS :
of presumptions, 3.55.
of admissions, 114.
NON-EXISTENCE :
of fact, burden of proof, 387-389."
NON-EXPERT WITNESSES:
opinions of, when admissible, 265.
evidence of, on insanity, 285, 286.
NON-OCCURRENCE :
of event, evidence to show, 565, 566.
NON-PAYMENT (see Consideration).
NON-PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES:
presumption from, 16.
NON-REPAIR :
relevancy of evidence to show, 17-20.
NON-RESIDENT WITNESSES:
their former testimony, when admissible, 168.
taking depositions of, 169.
commission to procure deposition of, 530-534.
privilege of, from arrest, 430-423.
04:6 INDEX.
Beferonces are to pages.
NONSUIT:
for failure of proof, 29.
motion for, affidavit to sustain, 520.
NOTARY PUBLIC :
his entries as evidonce, 79.
may take acknowledgments, 188.
aclmowledgment before, after expiration of term, 189.
seal of, may amend his return, 189, 190.
judicial notice of seal of, 373.
his power to administer oatlis, 527.
NOTES:
filling blanks in, 181.
presumption as to date of alteration in, 183.
presumptions of payment, 344.
NOTICE :
certificate of acknowjedgmeut as notice, 193.
to produce writings, 176.
in legal proceedings, 406.
to adverse party to take depositions, 531.
NOTICE TO QUIT:
silence, when admission, 113.
NOTORIOUS FACTS:
judicial notice of, 364 et seq.
NUMBER:
of witnesses required in equity, 430, 431.
NUMBER OF WITNESSES:
court may limit, when, 561, 562.
of expert witnesses, 562.
in trials for perjury, 562, 563.
in trials for treason, 563, 564.
whose calling may be compelled, 565.
£is affecting the weight of evidence, 565, 566.
NURSE:
evidence to show value of services of, 293.
o.
OATH:
of witness, its utility, 64.
should not be administered to prisoner on his preliminary examination,
131.
of party, to show loss of writing, 183.
defined, 448.
classified, 448.
form of, in courts, 448, 449.
assent of witness, 449.
affirmation, 449.
INDEX. Ci7
References are to pages.
OATH (continued):
binding cliaracter of, 450.
objections to, 450.
administered by arbitrators. 451.
waiver of, in arbitration, 451.
mentioning aliases, 450.
religious cliaracter of, 451.
irreligion as a disqualification, 451.
constitutional guaranTi(;s, 452.
administration of, to deponent, 531.
of Interpreter, 469.
OBJECTION :
to variance, necessity for, 46.
to evidence, necessity for, 35.
OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITIONS :
should be promptly made, 533.
waiver of, 533.
because of interest of deponent, 533,
parol evidence to remove, 533.
in the discretion of the court, 533.
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE:
must be specific, 538.
must be promptly made, 539.
must be followed by an exception, 539.
may be waived, 540.
need not be repeated, 541.
mode of waiver, R42.
snould be followed by motion to strike out, 54a
OBLITERATIONS (see Alterations).
OBSERVATION :
of detailed fact, with judgment, 268-270.
of witness, cross-examination to test, 483.
OBSTRUCTING THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES:
a misdemeanor, 414.
when witness was not subpoenaed, 414.
unsuccessful attempt at, 415,
by scurrilous language, 415.
.arrest of obstructor, 415.
beating a witness after he testifles, 413,
by district attorney, 415.
language of indictment for, 415.
OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY:
presumption of, from paying rent, 347,
OI'-FER OF COMPROMISE :
as an admission, 106, 107.
wlien presumed confidential, 106.
648 INDEX.
Beferences are to pagea.
OFFER OF EVIDENCE:
must be explicit, 16.
should show purpose, 537.
stating substance of, in, 537.
purpose may appear from answer, 537,
OFFICE COPY:
defined, 219.
OFFICER:,
de facto, acknowledgment before, 18S, 189.
seals of, judicially noticed, 870, 373, 378, 379.
arresting witness, when liable, 423.
authority of, to take depositions, 533.
authority of, to administer oaths, 537.
OFFICERS OF COURTS :
judicial notice of their character, 379.
OFFICIAL BOOK ENTRIES, 78-80.
OFFICIAL CHARACTER:
judicial notice of, 370.
OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS:
when confidential, 256.
OFFICIAL DUTY:
presumption of performance of, 849.
OFFICIAL RECORDS (see Public Records).
OLD AGE:
of witness, admits his former evidence, 169,
OLEOMARGARINE :
judicial notice of, 373.
OMISSIONS:
parol evidence to supply, 307, 308.
in wills, cannot be filled by parol, 326.
in declaration of trust, parol evidence, 400.
OPEN AND CLOSE :
goes with burden of proof, 383.
OPEN COMMISSIONS :
to take testimony, 539.
OPENING THE DOOR:
for the adverse party, 486, 437.
(see also Personal Transaction.)
OPERATION :
of machine in court, 296.
OPERATION OF RAILROADS :
evidence of experts to show, 388.
INDEX. 649
Befereuces are to pages.
OPERATOR AT TELEPHONE :
when agent for both parties, 133,
OPINIONS:
form of question calling for, 267.
(see also Hypothetical Questions.)
inadmissible as dying declarations, 141, 143,
to show bad reputation of witness, 506.
(see also Expert Evidence.)
OPPORTUNITY :
relevancy of evidence to show, 20.
of witness, ascertainable on cross-examination, 480, 483.
ORAL EVIDENCE:
defined, 299.
(see also Parol Evidence.)
ORAL WARRANTY:
evidence to show, 311.
ORDER:
for witnesses to withdraw, 466-468.
ORDER FOR MONEY:
presumption from possession of, 345,
ORDINANCES :
judicial notice of, 375.
(see also Municipal Ordinanoer)
ORIGINAL AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE:
distinguished, 65, 66.
ORIGINAL ENTRY :
books of, 83, 84.
ORIGINAL EVIDENCE:
when required, 47-68.
ORIGIN OF FIRE :
evidence to show, 395.
ORPHANS' COURTS:
proof of records of, 336, 337.
OUTCRY:
evidence to show meaning of, 268L
"OUT OF JURISDICTION:"
defined, 168.
OVERT ACT :
evidence of, in treason, 564
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
cannot make evidence for his successor, 166.
G50 INDEX.
References are to pages.
OWNERSHIP:
primary evidence of, 58.
ship's registry as evidence, 216.
opinion evidence on, 267.
presumption of, 341.
OWN WITNESS:
party may not impeacli, 500-503.
exceptions to the general rule, 503-504.
OYER:
of sealed instruments, 41.
P.
PAIN :
declarations of, 68.
PARDON :
restoring competency of witness, 455.
when ineffectual, 456.
conditional, 456.
full pardon, 456.
judicial notice of, 458.
proof of, 456.
irrevocable character of, 456.
^ARISH REGISTER:
as evidence of birth, 210.
not primary evidence of marriage, 54
PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE :
when inadmissible, 299-301.
interpretation and construction of wi-itings, 301-304
rule applies between parties only, 304.
to vary or explain or show real consideration, 304-306.
incomplete and collateral writings, 307. 308.
to connect and explain contemporaneous writings, 308.
to explain receipts, 309, 310.
to show independent parol contracts and conditions precedent, 810, 311.
to establish implied, resulting or constructive trusts, 318.
to show discharge, modification or extension of contract, 313-314
to rebut presumptions. 314, 315.
to show usage, 316, 317.
to explain technical terms. 317, 318.
to explain abbreviations, 319.
to show the relations of the pa ities, 330.
to ascertain or explain subject-matter. 330-322.
ambiguities defined and distinguished ; parol evidence to explain, 333-
826.
as applicable to wills, 338-339.
INDEX. 651
Heferences are to pages.
PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE (continued) :
to show absolute deed a mortgage and in suits for specific performance
and reformation or cancellation, 329-333. .
inadmissible to var}' a written award, 110.
inadmissible to supply omissions in an acknowledgment, 191.
erroneous admission of, how cured, 51.
to explain returns on writs, 328.
to show contents of missing telegram, 863.
PARTIAL EVIDENCE :
defined, 3.
PARTIAL PERFORMANCE:
of parol contract for the sale of land, 397.
of parol partition, 399.
PARTICULAR CUSTOM:
actual knowk'dge of required, 316.
PARTIES :
to writing, their relation may be shown by parol, 320.
bound by rule excluding parol evidence, 304.
as witnesses, when entitled to fees, 408, 409.
may serve subpoena, 413.
competency of, as witnesses, 433-437.
competency of, as witnesses iu equity, 430-433.
their incompetency to testify at common law, 426,
reasons for excluding them, 435.
their knowledge of the facts in issue, 435.
when they are competent, 427-439.
may make afiidavits, 536.
as witnesses, impeachment of, 501, 503.
PARTITION :
by parol, when valid, 898, 399.
PARTNER:
admissions of, 93.
when a trustee for his associates, 403.
PARTNERSHIP:
must be shown to admit declarations of partners, 93.
presumption of continuance of, 350.
contract of, when it must be in writing, 402.
PARTNERSHIP SETTLEMENT:
conveying land, 397.
PART PAYMENT:
evidence of, 86, 87.
of firm debt after dissolution, 93, 94
PART PERFORMANCE:
of oral contract of partnei-ship, 403.
652 INDEX.
Eeferences are to pages.
PASS-BOOK :
of bank, as evidence, 84.
PATENT :
burden of proof to show want of invention, 390.
PATENT AMBIGUITIES:
parol evidence inadmissible to explain, 323, 334, 325.
PAYMENT:
indorsements as evidence of, 87.
of firm debt after dissolution, 98, 94.
presumption as to time and purpose of, 344, 345.
of money, when evidenced by writing, 406.
PAYMENT INTO COURT:
its effect as an admission, 117.
PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION:
admission of, when conclusive, 117.
PEACEABLE DISPOSITION:
wlien relevant, 27.
PECUNIARY INTEREST:
declaration against, 162-106.
PECUNIARY LIABILITY:
of witness, questions showing, 515, 516.
PEDIGREE:
defined, 68-71.
PENALTY :
burden of proof in action to recover, 387.
PENCIL SKETCHES:
as primary evidence, 60.
PERFORMANCE :
time of, may be shown, 307.
burden of proving, 389.
of contract for the sale of land, 397.
of parol partition, 399.
PERFORMANCE OF DUTY:
by officers, wlien presumed, 349.
PERISHABLE GOODS:
evidence to show the condition of, 284.
PERJURY:
variance in an indictment for, 44.
presumptions from. 343.
conviction of, disqualifies witness, 457.
presumptions from, 512-514.
in affidavit, 528.
possibility of excluded interested witnesses, 425.
number of witnesses in trials for, 562, !568.
(see Falsus in Uno.)
INDEX. 653
Beferenoea are to pages.
PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY:
by a bill in equity, 534, 535.
PERSON:
exhibition of, to the jury, 493-495.
PERSONAL CONDITION (see Condition, Health, etc.).
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE :
of witness, its character, 64.
admissions based on, 115, 116.
juror having, should testify, 489.
of juror, verdict based on, 505. .
PERSONAL PROPERTY:
presumptions from the possession of, 343.
trusts created in, by parol, 400.
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE:
exclusion of interested witnesses against, 436 445.
(see also Personal Transactions.)
PERSONAL SERVICE :
of the subpoena, 413.
by a part}', 413.
when,it must be shown to obtain a continuance, 417.
PERSONAL SERVICES :
evidence to show the value of, 291, 292.
PERSONAL STATUS :
judgments fixing, 239.
PERSONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH DECEASED:
incompetency of witness to, 435, 436.
waiver of exclusion of, 436-438.
who are representatives, 438.
object of the statutes, 439.
character and construction of the statutes, 439,
definition, 440.
transactions with agent of the deceased, 450.
contract in issue, 441.
a writing is not, 441.
whether excluded is a question for court, 443.
incompetency of interested witnesses, 443, 444,
(see also Interested Persons.)
PERSONS :
proof of, in indictment, 43.
PHENOMENA OF NATURE :
judicial notice of, 366.
654 INDEX.
Heferenoes are to pages.
PHOTOGRAPHS:
when primary evidence, 49, 59, 60.
as evidence, relevancy of, 60, 80.
to prove liandwriting, 59, 180.
to describe buildings, physical injuries, etc., 49, 59.
for identification, 59, 60.
preliminary question, 60.
« by amateur, 60.
weight of, 60.
changes in object photographed, 60.
PHRASES :
meaning of, will be noticed, 305.
PHYSICAL CONDITION:
photograplis to show, 60.
(see also Health.)
evidence to show, 278-282.
PHYSICAL DISABILITY:
of witness, admits his former evidence, 169.
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
evidence of an expert medical witness founded on, 274
of party by medical experts, 397, 298.
by the jury, 492-495.
PHYSICAL FEELINGS:
verbal expressions of, 68-71.
PHYSICAL INJURIES:
•photographs as evidence of, 59.
medical testimony as to, 278-380.
PHYSICIANS:
declarations to, 70.
information acquired by, non-professionall}', 280L
credibility of, as witnesses, 376.
physical examination by, 297, 398.
PHYSICIANS AS EXPERT WITNESSES:
may testify —
to effect of wounds or injuries, 878.
to manner inflicted, 279.
to health, 278.
to possibility of recovery, 279.
to probable cause of injury, 379.
to curability of injury, 279.
to cause of death, 280.
to time of deatli, 280.
to means of death, 280.
to character of a disease, 280.
to simulation of disease, 280.
to manner of conducting autopsies, 280.
INDEX. 655
Eeferenoes are to pages.
PHYSICIANS AS EXPERT WITNESSES (continued):
may testify (continued) —
to cause of condition of bodj', 281.
to blood-stain, 281.
in actions for malpractice, 381, 282.
to insanity, 388.
to chemical analysis, 383.
may examine weapon, 279.
PISTOL:
used to explain evidence, 60.
PLACE:
proof of, in indictments, 43.
allegations of, 33.
judicial notice of, 368.
PLAINTIFF:
his right to open and close, 390, 391,
PLANS (see Maps and Photographs).
PLATS :
incorporation of, in deeds by reference, 309.
PLEADING, MODE OF:
customs, 316.
former judgment, 336.
PLEADINGS :
pedigree in, 73.
as admissions, 107.
presumptions from, 107.
when sworn to, 108.
when considered as formulas, 108.
amendment of, when presumed, 354
right to open and close arising on, 393.
admissions in the answer in equity, 430.
may be read by the jurors, 489.
PLEAS IN BAR:
proof of one of several, sufBcient, 40.
POISONS:
testimony of chemists, 383. 284.
POLICEMEN:
confessions made to, 137.
POLICE OFFICIALS:
communications to, when confidential, 255.
POLICIES OF INSURANCE :
parol evidence to vary, 301.
expert evidence in actions on. 294, 205.
burden of proof in actions on, 388.
656 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
POLITICAL FACTS:
judicial notice of, 369, 370.
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS:
judicial notice of, 36S.
POPULAR MEANING:
of language, 818.
POPULATION:
judicial notice of, 368.
POSITION:
of objects, photographs to show, 59, 60.
POSITIVENESS :
of answers by witness, 267.
POSITIVE TESTIMONY:
its weight and credibility, 565, 566.
instructions on, 563. '
POSSESSION:
evidence of, in corroboration of ancient documents, 152, 155.
presumption from adverse, 388, 839.
presumption of ownership, 343-344,
in trespass, burden of proving, 389.
of land under statute of frauds, 397, 399.
of writings, presumptions from, 843, 344, 345.
of negotiable paper, 844.
of rent receipts, 347.
presumed continuance, 350.
POSSIBILITY (see Peobablb Cause and Cake).
POSTAL LAWS, VIOLATIONS OF:
evidence of, obtained by decoy letters, 177.
POST-MARK :
presumption from, 347.
POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION (see Autopsies).
POVERTY:
evidence to show, 269.
of witness, as excuse for his non-attendance, 410, 411.
does not extend privilege from arrest, 432.
PORTRAITS :
inscriptions on, as pedigree, 73.
POWER OF ATTORNEY:
blanks in, 180.
PRAYER:
confession contained in, 131.
PREGNANCY :
expert testimony in case of, 284, 285.
INDEX. 657
Beferences are to pages. ■
PREJUDICE :
when rendering evidence of reputation inadmissible, 156.
of witness, ascertainable by cross-examination, 480, 483, 485,
(see Bias and Prej0dice.)
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS:
objects of, 131.
witnesses at, 131.
voluntary appearance at, 131,
statements of accused at, 133.
when taljen down in writing, 133.
signature by accused, 133.
/
PRELIMINARY PROOF:
of partnership, 92.
of conspiracy, 95.
PRELIMINARY QUESTION:
for judge, 30, 35.
of voluntary character of confession, 126, 127.
may be submitted to jury, 85.
of competency of expert, 271.
of competency of dying declarations, 143.
of loss of writing, 184.
, of conspiracy, 135, 136.
PREMEDITATION:
declarations to show, 76.
PREMISES:
maps or photographs of, 59, 60, 217, 218, 309.
PREMIUM:
increase of, for insurance, 395.
PREPAYMENT:
of witness fees, when necessary, 409.
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE:
not required as basis for hypothetical question, 273.
sufficient in civil trials, 9.
may prevent a continuance, 418.
in equity, 431.
PRESCRIPTION:
defined, 335.
presumptions from, 339, 340.
PRESENCE:
of testator, what constitutes, 405, 406.
of witness, does not prevent reading his deposition, 534.
PRESENCE OF ADVERSE PARTY :
as rendering self-serving declarations competent, 113.
42
658 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
PRESIDING JUDGE :
his duty to certify to records, 224.
his incompetency as a witness, 447.
PRESS COPY:
of letter, as evidence, 80.
when primary evidence, 48, 49.
PRESUMPTION :
arising from false testimony of alibi, 13.
from non-production of witness or deposition, 16.
of performance of official duty, 133.
of continuance of improper influence producing a confession, 139.
how rebutted, 139.
province of court to say whether it is rebutted, 139.
in favor of ancient documents, 148, 150.
as to alterations in a will, 183.
as to alterations in a deed, 181.
as to alterations in promissory notes, 183.
as to identity of persons, 183.
when two of same name, 183.
of impotency, 398.
that ordinance was properly enacted, 314
of consideration from sealing, 305.
as to correctness of date, 814.
satisfaction of legacies, 314, 315.
as to resulting trust, 314.
from advancements, 315.
as to delivery of deeds, 315.
as to acceptance of deeds, 315.
of knowledge of law, 377.
definition and classification of presumptions, 333, 334.
of law and fact distinguished, 334-337.
of fact, 337, 338.
from adverse possession and prescription, 338-340.
from lapse of time, 341.
from possession, 343-346.
from the usual course of trade, 346-349.
of lawfulness ; continuity ; sanity ; insanity, 349-353, 885,
as to jurisdiction, 353-356.
of life, death and survivorship, 356-359.
of legitimacy ; innocence ; malice, 359-363.
none to be drawn from interest of witness, 435.
none from refusal to answer incriminating questions, 533.
from deliberate perjury, 513-514.
PREVIOUS COURSE OF DEALING:
effect of, in construing contracts, 303, 304
PRIESTS :
communications to, 358, 259.
INDEX. 669
Beferences are to pages.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE;
distinguished, 47-49.
instruments required to be in writing, 49, 50.
disputed writings. 51, 53.
contracts and transactions actually reduced to writing, 53-54.
collateral writings, 54, 55.
exceptions in the case of records and appointments, 55-57.
exceptions in the case of general results, 57, 58.
admissions as primary evidence, 58.
photographs as primary evidence, 59, 60.
production of articles in court, 60-63.
(see Statute op Frauds.)
PRINCIPAL:
when bound by agent's declarations, 101-103.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT (see Aqency and Admissions),
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY:
admissions of, 99, 100.
PRINTED BOOKS:
as evidence, 308, 311-313, 315-318.
PRINTED CLAUSES IN CONTRACTS:
their meaning controlled by written clauses, 303»
PRINTERS' ABBREVIATIONS :
judicial notice of, 366.
PRISON:
attendance of witness in, how procured, 483L
PRISON RECORDS :
as evidence, 316.
PRIVATE ARBITRATIONS (see Arbitration)^
PRIVATE BOOKS :
as evidence, 79-86.
PRIVATE BOUNDARIES:
proof of (see Boundaries).
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS:
when bound, by admissions of employees, 10&
judicial notice of their charters, 376.
competency of members of, as witnesses, 437.
PRIVATE CORPORATION RECORDS:
parol evidence to vary, 300.
PRIVATE ENTRIES, 78.
PRIVATE MAPS:
to show boundaries, 318.
PRIVATE RIGHTS :
reputation to prove, 154, 157-159.
660 INDEX.
BefereQces are to pages.
PRIVATE STATUTES;
judicial notice of, 374-376.
PRIVATE VIEW :
by the jury, 488.
PRIVATE WRITINGS :
definition and classification, 174, 175.
production of ; proof of contents by secondary evidence, 175-177.
obtained by fraud or deceit; decoy letters, 177, 178.
spoliation and alteration distinguished ; effect of material alterations,
178-181.
alterations ; presumptions and burden of proof to explain, 181-183.
when lost or destroyed, 183-18.5.
handwriting defined, 185, 186.
production of writings, wlien necessary, 186.
proof by admissions of party, 186, 187. '
when proof of handwriting may be dispensed with ; acknowledgments,:
187, 188.
who may take acknowledgments, 188, 189.
the certificate, 189-191.
impeaching the certificate, 193.
proof by subscribing witnesses, 192-195.
proof by witnesses acquainted with handwriting, 195-198.
mode of examining witnesses to handwriting, 198-300.
comparison of handwriting, 300-804.
to what expert may give evidence, 204, 205.
proof of exhibits in equity, 205.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS: '
foundation of the doctrine, 343.
husband and wife, when competent witnesses, 344, 245.
' statutory legislation ; confidential communications, 845-347.
between husband and wife, 247-249.
communications to attorneys, 349, 350.
character and time of the communications', 251.
attorney employed by both parties, 252.
permanent character of the privilege ; its waiver, 353, 253.
privileges as to documents, 253, 354. '
what comm.unications are within the privilege, 854, 255.
privilege of police, judicial and executive officials, 355, 356.
privilege as relating to jurors, 357, 258.
confidential communications to clergymen, 358, 359.
communications to physicians, 859, 360.
telegrams are not, 363, 363.
PRIVILEGE OF WITNESSES FROM ARREST:
from service of civil process, 430.
service may be set aside, 421.
from civil arrest, 421.
INDEX. 661
Beferenoes are to pages.
PRIVILEGE OF "WITNESSES FROM ARREST (continued):
before investigating committee, 431.
in case of non-residence, 431.
duration of, 433.
abrogated by delay to return, 433.
oflficer is not bound to know, 433.
arrest after termination of, 433.
PRIVILEGES OF WITNESSES IN ANSWERING:
questions showing pecuniary liability, 515, 516.
questions tending to disgrace, 497, 498, 516-519.
questions tending to incriminate, 519-523.
PRIVIES:
judgment binds, 330.
PRIVITY:
as affecting admissions, 89, 90.
PROBABILITY :
as grounds for belief, 4.
relevancy of evidence to show, 21.
opinion evidence to show, 367, 368.
PROBABLE CAUSE:
a judicial question, 33.
evidence of declarations to show, 67.
opinions when inadmissible, 368.
of death, 278, 380.
of injury, 379.
of symptoms, 379.
in malicious prosecution, 387.
PROBABLE MEANS:
of death, 280, 281.
PROBABLE TIME:
of death, 280.
PROBABLE TRUTH:
of evidence of absent witness, 417.
PROBATE:
proof of fact of, 237.
PROBATE PROCEEDING:
burden of proof in, 383, 384
right to open and close in, 393.
PROCEEDINGS:
special, right to open and close in, 393, 394
PROCESS :
privilege of witness from service of, 480.
to procure attendance of witness (see Compulsory Process, etc. ; DtJCES
Tecum ; Subpcena.)
662 INDEX.
Befeiences are to pages.
PROCLAMATION:
as evidence, 208.
judicial notice of, 370.
PRODUCTION OF WITNESS:
dispensed with in case of entries, 79.
PRODUCTION OF WRITING:
when necessary in proving a writing, 183-186.
how obtained, 175, 176.
PROFESSIONAL ENTRIES:
their value as evidence, 78-80.
PROLIXITY :
as an objection to hypothetical questions, 273.
PROMISE:
rendering confessions involuntary, 128.
confessions procured by, 130.
persons making, 135, 136.
to hold testamentary gift in trust, 338.
PROMISSORY NOTE :
right to open and close in an action on, 393.
PROOF:
dispensed with by judicial notice, 364.
" PROPER EVIDENCE : "
defined, 14.
PROPER CUSTODY FOR ANCIENT WRITINGS:
defined, 149, 150.
a judicial question, 149.
lessor or grantor, 150.
PROPER MANAGEMENT: ■
of ship, 289.
PROPRIETY :
of act, opinion of, 266.
PROSTITUTES :
association with, as revelant to prove adultery, 23.
PROVINCE OF JUDGE :
to instruct jury as to circumstantial evidence, 8.
to determine if dying declaration is admissible, 140.
as to proper custody of ancient documents, 149.
voluntary character of confessions, 127.
genuineness of standard for comparison of writing, 203,
to construe foreign law, 211.
on issue of domestic record, 230.
to construe contract, 303.
to permit disgracing questions, 520.
to permit incriuiinating questions, 531.
to take part in examination of witness, 473.
to exclude incompetent evidence, 472, 473.
INDEX. 663
Beferences are to pages.
PROVINCE OF JURY :
to weigh circumstantial evidence, 8.
over opinion evidence, 273, 276.
over negligence, 291.
to determine damages, 292, 293.
to determine completeness of contract, 307.
to construe contract, 308.
to weigh the evidence, 473.
(see also Facts.)
PRUDENCE:
evidence to show presence or absence of, 268.
(see also Care.)
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTRIES:
distinguished, 78.
PUBLICATION:
service by proving, 229.
of ordinances, how proved, 214, 215.
in newspaper as evidence, 215,
of will by testator, 406.
PUBLIC BOUNDARIES:
judicial notice of, 368, 369.
PUBLIC HOLIDAYS:
judicial notice of, 365.
PUBLICITY, 156, 157.
PUBLIC LANDS:
primary evidence of their boundaries, 57.
PUBLIC LAWS :
judicial notice of, 374-376.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS :
judicial notice of customs of, 373.
PUBLIC POLICY:
communications incompetent by (see Privileged Communications).
PUBLIC RECORDS:
primary evidence of, 54.
PUBLIC RECORDS, PROOF AND EFFECT OF:
definition of, 209.
inspection of, 206, 207.
proof of executive and legislative acts and writings, 208.
pi^oof of non-judicial records, 209-211.
proof of foreign laws, 211-218.
proof of municipal ordinances, 213-215.
effect of public documents as evidence, 315-217.
historical and scientific publications; almanacs and newspapers, 217,
218.
664 INDEX.
References are to pages.
PUBLIC RECORDS, PROOF AND EFFECT OF (continued):
proof of judicial records defined, 218-331.
records of courts of equity and of inferior courts, 321, 223.
records of courts of other states, 333-225.
foreign judgments, 335, 326.
records of surrogate courts, 336, 327.
returns on writs; the effect of judicial records as evidence, 227-239.
the effect of judgments on those in privity with the parties, 331, 333.
judgment records as evidence, 230, 231. >
judgment must have been final and on the merits, 333.
judgments conclusive only as to material facts in issue, 333.
identity of cause of action required, 234-236.
persons affected by judgments in rem and actions fixing personal status,
336, 237.
criminal judgments, 337.
proof of judgments as facts and their use as proving ulterior facts dis-
tinguished, 387, 338.
validity and effect of foreign judgments, 288-340.
judgments of sister states, 841.
judgments in bar need not be pleaded, 243.
PUBLIC RIGHT:
reputation to show, 154
PUBLIC STATUTES:
judicial notice of, 373.
"PUBLIC WRITINGS:"
defined, 174
PURPOSE (see Malice, Intention and Motive).
Q.
QUALIFICATION OF WITNESS:
to testify to blood, 381.
to insanity, 287.
to value, 292.
to machinery, etc., 288.
of experts in general, 271-373.
to physical condition of a person, 383,
QUALITY :
allegation and proof of, 89.
proof of, by comparison, 297.
QUANTITY:
allegation and proof of, 39.
QUARRELSOME DISPOSITION:
relevancy of, 27.
INDEX. 065
Beferences are to pages
QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS:
admissioDS of inhabitants of, 99.
QUEEN'S CASE:
rule in, 508.
QUESTIONS PUT TO WITNESS:
wlien leading, 470, 471.
wlien assuming, 470.
may be answered by narrative, 471.
piif, by court or jury, 471-473.
to witness, must not be vague, 476.
responsive answers required, 477.
(see Hypothetical Questions.)
QUESTIONS FOR COURT OR JURY, 28-35,
QUESTION OF FACT:
proof of foreign law, 211.
(see also Facts.)
QUESTIONS OF LAW :
competency of expert, 271.
QUO WARRANTO :
judgment of ouster in, effect of, 231.
R.
RACE:
inspection by jury to determine, 493, 494
RAILROAD BUILDERS:
as expert witnesses, 288, 289.
RAILROAD CORPORATIONS :
when bound by the admissions of their employees, 103,
RAILROAD OFFICIALS:
as expert witnesses, 288.
RAILROAD TRAINS:
evidence to show speed of, 269, 270.
damage caused by running, 271.
proper method of stopping, 288.
derailment of, 288.
RAILROAD TRAVEL:
judicial notice of, 365.
RAILROADS :
judicial notice of the existence of, 373.
expert evidence to show operation of, 288, 289.
666 INDEX.
Eeferenoes are to pages.
ExiPE:
relevancy of evidence of chastity of prosecuting witness in, 25.
declarations by the victim of, 71.
presumption that boy cannot commit, 334.
medical testimony in a case of, 284
questions on witness' chastity in, 517.
RATE OF INTEREST:
judicial notice of, 378.
REAL ESTATE AGENT:
as a witness to land values, 392, 293.
REAL EVIDENCE:
defined, 493.
where legitimacy is in issue, 492.
resemblance shown by, 493.
to show a person's race or color, 493.
to determine age, 494.
to show identity, 494, 495.
REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST:
admissions of, 99.
his incompetency as a witness, 426.
guarantor, his interest, 429.
REASONABLE CARE:
charging the jury on, 33, 34.
opinion evidence as to. 266, 367.
REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION:
defined, 303.
REASONABLE DOUBT:
defined, 8-13.
burden of proof, 384.
prisoner need not prove insanity beyond, 385.
REBUTTAL :
parol evidence in, of presumptions, 314, 315.
of experiments by others, 396.
evidence in, may be offered in chief, 16.
depositions for use in, 532.
defined, 551. '
discretion of court to reject evidence offered in, 551, 558,
corroborative or cumulative evidence in, 553.
evidence in, to overcome a presumption, 553.
evidence in, to show whole of conversation, 553.
order of proof, 553.
RECALLING WITNESS:
discretion of court. 487.
after recross examination, 488.
refusal, 488.
INDEX. 667
Eeferenoes are to pages.
RECALLING WITNESS (continued) :
it witness is unable to answer positively, 488.
not to obtain cumulative evidence, 488.
both parties may examine on, 488.
kECAPITULATION OF EVIDENCE:
by court, 33.
RECEIPTS :
indorsement as evidence, 87.
deHnition of, 309.
evidence to explain, 309.
form of, 310.
considered as contracts, 310.
as a declaration against interest, 1C3.
of agents, 100-103.
RECEIVING EVIDENCE OUT OF COURT:
when it is improper, 488.
by experiments, 488.
from prirate persons, 483.
from witnesses, 489.
in writing, 489.
from articles in jury room, 489.
by taking the view, 489-491.
(see also Taking the View.)
RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE :
offering and objecting to evidence, 536-540.
waiver of objections to ; necessity for repeating objections, 540-542.
motions to strike out, 542, 548.
improper admission of evidence, when immaterial, 544, 545.
improper exclusion of evidence, when immaterial, 545, 546.
nature and use of stipulations, 547-549.
demurrer to evidence, 549, 550.
surprise, 550, 551.
rebutting evidence ; nature and use of, 551-553.
order of proof ; evidence offered by the party after he rests, 553, 554.
materiality and sufficiency of newly-discovered evidence, 554, 555.
diligence of party offering, must be shown, 555, 556.
newly-discovered evidence must not be cumulative or impeaching, 5.j6.
557.
writ of error ; when employed at common law, 557, 558.
the powers of appellate tribunals in relation to the evidence, 558-561.
limitations on the number of witnesses, 561, 56'^
number of witnesses in trials for perjury, 562, 563.
number of witnesses in trials for treason, 563, 564.
compelling the calling of the witnesses, 564, 565.
positive and negative testimony; number of witnesses affecting the
weight of evidence, 565, 566.
the discretionary power of the court, 5G6, 567.
C68 INDEX.
Beferenoes are to pages.
RECITALS:
parol evidence to vary, 304-308.
RECOGNITION :
of speaker through telephone, 133.
RECOGNIZANCE :
of witness, 414.
when dispensed with, 414.
RECOLLECTION OF WITNESS (see Refeeshinq the Memory).
RECONCILEMENT:
of discrepancies, 33.
RECORDS:
primary evidence of, 54.
parol evidence to vary, 300.
presumptions where they are silent, 353-356.
judicial notice of, 378.
(see Public Records.)
RECORDS AND APPOINTMENTS TO OFFICE:
best evidence of, 55-57.
REDELIVERY:
of conveyance, effect of, 401.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION:
explaining contradictory statements on, 486.
explaining motives on, 486.
new matter may not be brought in, 486.
must not be suggestive, 487.
irrelevant evidence on cross-examination, its efifect on, 487.
REFEREES:
incompetency of, as witnesses, 447.
REFERENCE:
admissions by, 109-111.
confessions by, 125.
REFORMATION :
evidence required in a suit for, 330-338.
of certificate of acknowledgment, 191.
REFRESHING THE MEMORY :
as to genuineness of writing, 199.
writing used for, not obtainable by subpoena duces tecum, 412.
by leading questions, 475.
by consulting memoranda, 477.
memorandum for, is not evidence, 477.
character of writing used for, 478, 479.
REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS:
when it is an admission, 113.
INDEX. 669
Eefbrenoes are to pages.
REFUSAL TO TESTIFY:
when a contempt, 468.
who may punish for, 468.
before commissioner, 468.
before grand Jury, 468.
at an examination before trial, 469.
in case of impertinent questions, 469.
when court has no jurisdiction, 469.
REGISTER:
of ship, as evidence, 216.
REGISTERS, PUBLIC:
proof of, 208-311.
REGULARITY:
of judicial records, presumptions, 333-356.
presumptions of, in official business, 841.
REGULATIONS OF DEPARTMENTS:
judicial notice of, 370.
RELATION OF PARTIES:
may be shown by parol, 320.
RELATIONSHIP:
declarations of, as res gestae, 76.
family reputation as evidence of, 75.
RELEASES :
parol evidence to vary, 301.
RELEVANCY :
a judicial question, 7, 14-16.
collateral facts, how far admissible, 17-20.
evidence of intention, motive, good faith, etc., when relevant, 30-24
collateral facts bearing on character, 24-37.
of photographs, maps and diagrams, 59.
RELEVANT:
defined, 14.
RELIABILITY:
of witness, cross-examination to test, 483.
RELIGIOUS BELIEF:
as a sanction for dying declarations, 138, 139.
of witness, 451, 453.
RELIGIOUS DISCIPLINE :
communication in the course of, 358.
REMAINDERMAN :
admissions of, 91.
judgment, when binding on, 231.
REMARKS OF COUNSEL:
court may in the charge call attention to, 81.
670 INDEX.
Eeferenoes are to pages.
REMOTENESS:
when an objection to a photograph as evidence, 60.
as bearing on relevancy, 17.
RENT:
presumptions from collection of, 347.
RENTAL VALUE:
primary evidence of, 53.
REPAIRS:
opinion evidence of, 270.
REPAIRS TO HIGHWAY, MACHINERY, ETtt:
relevancy of evidence of, 19.
REPLEVIN TO RECOVER WRITING, 53.
REPLIES :
of witness, must be responsive, 476.
REPRESENTATIVES :
admissions of, 100.
REPUTATION :
distinguished from specific acts, 86.
as primary evidence of marriage, 54.
defined, 153.
(see also Pedigree.)
REPUTATION FOR TRUTH:
impeachment of —
by evidence of bad reputation, 504.
bad repute must be recent, 504.
synonymous with character, 505.
belief under oath, 505.
jury may not rely on personal knowledge of, 505.
mode of impeaching, 506.
general moral character, when admissible, 506, 507.
of absent witness, may be attacked, 419.
REPUTATION OF IMPEACHED WITNESS:
relevancy of evidence to show, 514.
in case of contradictory evidence, 514.
when testimony of witness is shaken, 514.
when contradictory statements are shown, 515.
RESCISSION:
of writing, may be shown by parol, 312-814.
RESEMBLANCE :
proof of, value by. 294.
inspection by jury to determine, 493, 493.
RES GESTAE:
requisites of, 75, 76.
must be illustrative, 75, 76.
must be contemporaneous, 77, 78.
INDEX. 671
References are to pages.
RES GEST^ (continued) :
entries as res gestae, 78-80.
distinguished from dying declarations, 142.
declarations of partners as a part of, 92-94
declarations of conspirators as a part of, 94-96.
admissions of agents, when a part of, 103, 104.
declarations forming a part of and declarations against interest distin-
guished, 163.
RESIDENCE (see Domicile).
RESISTANCE TO ARREST:
as a confession, 124
RESOLUTIONS :
of corporations, not judicially noticed, 375, 376.
admissible to explain corporative intention, 76.
primary evidence of, 55.
of municipal corporations (see Municipal Ordinances).
RESPONDENT:
in equity, his answer as evidence, 430.
RESPONSIVENESS :
of answers on the direct examination, 476.
RESTRAINT:
attendance of witness under, 423.
RESULT :
of experiments out of court, 296.
RESULTING TRUST:
parol evidence to establish, 312.
not under the statute of frauds, 400.
RETIREMENT FROM PRACTICE :
does not disqualify an expert, 273.
RETURN OF SEASONS:
judicial notice of, 366.
RETURNS ON WRITS :
defined, 227.
requisites of, 227.
irregularities in, 228.
signature to, 228.
parol evidence to explain, 228.
invalidity of, 228.
filing, 228.
amendment of, 228.
conclusiveness of, 229.
evidence of, 227-229.
REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE:
on appeal, 557-S61.
072 INDEX.
Eeferenoes are to pages.
RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE:
when plaintiflE may open and close, 390, 391.
when defendant may open and close, 392, 393.
right to open and close in special proceedings, 393, 394
right, when discretionary, 394, 395.
RISK, INCREASE OF:
evidence to show, 2i}I.
eIiVERS :
judicial notice of, 369.
ROBBING THE MAILS :
evidence of, obtained by decoy letters, ITI.
ROLLING STOCK :
evidence to show condition of, 288.
ROUTINE :
evidence of, to refresh memory, 475.
RULINGS :
of court, when presumed corrected, 354.
on evidence, form and character of, 472.
s.
SAFETY OF DECK LOAD, 289..
SAILORS :
as expert witnesses, 289.
SALES OF LAND :
as evidence of value, 17.
SANITY:
relevancy of declarations to show, 67.
presumptions of, 350-353.
essential to crime, 385,
(see Insanity.)
SATISFACTION:
of legacies, parol evidence to rebut, 315.
SCANDALOUS LANGUAGE:
in affidavit, effect of, 529.
SCIENTIFIC BOOKS :
use of in cross-examining experts, 275.
as evidence, 217, 218.
SCIENTIFIC FACTS :
judicial notice of, 371, 872.
SCREAMS AND GROANS:
evidence of, 70.
INDEX. 673
Eeferenoes are to pages.
SEAL:
of cop-poration, when its signature, 185.
to aeknowledgraent, 190.
use of, at common law, 300.
presumption of consideration from use of, 305.
judicial notice of, 370, 373. 378, 379.
necessity for, on suriender of lease, 401.
necessity for, in creating an agency, 403.
when required on jurat, 538_.
returning depositions under, 533.
SEA LED . INSTRUMENTS :
must be proved as alleged, 41.
power of partner to sign, 93.
agent's admissioQ in, 103.
SEAMEN:
as expert witnesses, 289.
SEARCH:
for subscribing witnesses, 194.
for witness, when a continuance is asked, 410.
SEASONS:
judicial notice of, 306.
SEAWORTHINESS:
evidence of, 389.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE, 47-63.
to prove contents of writing, 175-177.
SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE:
distinguished, 65.
SECOND-HAND FURNITURE:
evidence to show value, 393.
SECRECY:
confessions made under promises of, 130.
SECRET CRIMES:
circumstantial evidence in cases of, 6, 9.
SECRET PROCESS:
protected by court, 413.
SECURITIES:
evidence to show value of, 298, 394
SEDUCTION:
proof of chastity of the plaintiff in, 361.
SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS :
when hearsay. 111.
made in presence of adverse party, 113.
understanding of, by adverse party, 112. .
674: INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS (continued):
silence of adversary, 113.
consisting of scurrilous remarks. 113.
when competent as admissions, 113.
as hearsay, 63.
SEPARATE ESTATE -OF WIFE:
when bound by husband's admissions, 97.
SEPARATE ORAL AGREEMENTS:
may be shown by parol, 310.
SEPARATE TRIAL:
when rendering accomplice competent, 434.
SEPARATING WITNESSES AT THE TRIAL:
when ordered, 466.
disobedience to order, 467.
exclusion of evidence, 467.
exceptions to order, 468.
SERVICE BY PUBLICATION, 239.
SIRVICE OF PARTY:
when presumed, 3.54.
SERVICE OF SUBPCENA (see Subpcena : also Duces Tecum).
SERVICES :
evidence to show value of, 291, 293.
SETTING ASIDE THE VERDICT:
on appeal, 31, 357-561.
SETTLEMENT:
offers of, as admissions, 106, 107.
collateral facts Involved in offers of, 106.
SEX:
as an element in survivorship, 357, 358.
medical testimony to show, 281.
SEXUAL CRIMES:
evidence of physicians in prosecution for, 384
SEWERS :
evidence to show defect in, 391.
SHAM PLEA :
does not give right to open and close, 393,
SHERIFF:
judicial notice of, 379.
SHIP:
evidence to show management of, 389.
SHIP'S REGISTER:
as evidence, 316.
INDEX. 675
Eeferenoes are to pages.
SHIPWRECK:
of ship, as bearing on presumption of death, 357.
SHOE TRACKS (see Footpeints).
SHOP BOOKS:
as evidence, 81-86.
SHORTNESS OF MANNER:
evidence of, 269.
SICKNESS (see Health; Disease; Insanity, etc.),
SICK PERSONS:
admissibility of their declarations of present pain, 69,
SIGNAL OR GESTURE :
evidence to show meaning of, 368.
SIGNATURE:
of accused to written statements on preliminary examination, 131.
by mark, 185, 186.
testimony of expert, 204.
identity of, 205.
to acknowledgment, 190.
testimony to genuineness of, 195, 196.
proof of, by comparison, 200-204.
to returns on writs, 228. i
judicial notice of,, 373.
of testator to will, what constitutes, 405.
not indispensable in an affidavit, 528.
to jurat in an affidavit, 528.
SIGNATURE OF PARTNERSHIP:
proof of, by admissions, 92.
SIGNS:
deaf mute testimony by, 453.
dying declarations by, 145, 146.
SILENCE :
of writing as to consideration, 806.
SILENCE OF ACCUSED:
as a confession, 124, 125.
of a conspirator not a confession, 136,
(see Failure of Accused to Testify.)
SILENCE OF PARTY:
as creating an estoppel, 113, 113, 119, 130.
SILENCE OF WITNESS:
when suspicious, 512.
may be explained, 512.
SIMILAR CRIMES OR ACTS:
relevancy of, 21, 22.
676 iiTDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
SIMULATION OF DISEASE :
evidence to show, 280.
physical examination to expose, 297.
SIMULATION OF INSANITY:
may be shown, 498.
SIMULATION OF WRITING (see Handwriting).
SINGLE WITNESS:
may prove usage, 317.
or perjury, 562, 563.
SISTER STATES :
judgments of, 232-225, 241.
SITUATION (see Maps ; Photographs ; CtoNDiTiON, eta).
SIZE:
opinion evidence to show, 267.
SKELETON:
opinion as to sex founded on examination of, 280.
SKETCHES :
in pencil, their use aa evidence, 60.
SKILL:
of expert, evidence of by other witness, 274.
SLANDER:
evidence of character in action for, 25.
right to open and close in action of, 391.
SLATE:
memoranda on, 85.
SMOKE:
damage by, 371.
SOBRIETY :
evidence to show, 269.
SON ASSAULT DEMESNE :
right to open and close on plea of, 391.
SPARK ARRESTER:
use of, 295.
SPECIAL PROCEEDING:
burden of proof, 383, 384.
right to open and close in, 393, 394
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE:
parol evidence in suits for, ■331.
SPECULATIVE VALUE:
of securities, 293.
INDEX. 677
Beferences are to pages.
SPEED:
non-expert evidence to show, 267.
shown by combination of witnesses, 270.
expert evidence to show, 388.
SPLITTING CAUSES OF ACTION, 334.
SPOLIATION OF INSTRUMENTS i
defined. 178.
(see Alterations.)
SPONTANEOUS CHARACTER:
of res gestae, 77, 78.
of confessions, 139-131.
STAINS:
of blood, evidence of their character, 61, 28L
STAMP:
on deed, presumption of, 348.
STANDARDS OF COMPARISON:
of handwriting, 203.
irrelevant writings as, 201-204.
STANDING TIMBER (see Growing Timber).
STATE COMMONWEALTH:
statute of limitation does not run against, 339.
STATE COURTS:
proof of judgments of, 222-225, 341.
STATE LAWS:
judicial notice of, 377. '
STATEMENTS TO BE PROVED AS FACTS, 6&-6&
. STATISTICS :
registry of, as evidence, 310.
STATUTE :
usage admissible to explain, 317.
STATUTE OF AMENDMENTS:
in cases of variance, 45, 46.
STATUTE OF FRAUDS :
writings required by, 49, 50.
omission in writings required by, 307.
oral extension of contract may be shown, 313.
does not exclude parol evidence to reform deed, 330.
origin and nature of, 396.
agreements relating to interests in land, 397, 398.
partition of real property, 398, 399.
trusts in real and personal estate, 399, 400.
surrender or assignment of leases, 401.
contracts required to be in writing, 403.
articles of partnership, 403, 403.
678 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
STATUTE OF FRAUDS (continued) :
form and character of the writing, 403, 404.
wills required to be evidenced in writing. 404-406.
agreements not within the statute of frauds which must be eyidenced
by writings, 406.
STATUTE OF LIMITATION. 338-340.
evidence to remove the bar of. 87, 93, 94.
, as a defense, right to open and close, 393.
STATUTORY FEES:
of witness (see Mileage).
STATUTORY LAW :
judicial notice of the, 372-374.
proof of, 208.
foreign, proof of, 311-213.
presumptions of, 348.
STENOGRAPHER'S NOTES :
admissibility to show testimony of an absent witness, 171, 172.
use of, to refresh memory, 479.
employment of, to ascei-taiu knowledge of witness, 479.
STERILITY:
physical examination, when alleged, 297.
STIPULATIONS ON THE EVIDENCE:
of attorney, when binding on a client, 104.
as to admission of notes of evidence. 173.
to evidence, change of venue avoided by, 416.
continuance may be avoided by, 416.
defined, 547.
when a part of the record, 547.
when in estoppel, 547.
liberal and strict construction of, 548.
parol to explain, 548.
does not waive rights to call witness, 548.
substantial compliance required. 548.
when it may be disregarded, 549.
fraud in procurement of, 549.
STOCKHOLDER :
right of, to inspection of corporation's books, 307.
admissions of, 91, 92.
STOLEN GOODS:
presumption from the possession of, 343.
STORM :
eflfects of on ship, 289.
STRANDING :
of vessel, 389.
INDEX. 679
Beferences are to pages.
STRANGERS' DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST:
declarations of third persons and other declarations distinguished, lfi2,
168.
must be against interest, 163. 164
interest of the declarant, 164, 165.
death of the declarant, 165.
knowledge of the declarant, 165.
statements of predecessor against interest, when evidence in behalf of
successor, 166.
STRANGERS TO RECORD :
confessions by, 135.
admissions by, 99, 100.
spoliation of writings by, 178.
not bound by the judgment, 330.
not bound by rule excluding parol evidence to vary writing, 304
delivery of deed to, 345.
may have deed declared a mortgage, 331.
STREET:
, oral agreement to grade, 311.
STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF WRITINGS:
defined, 303.
STRIKING OUT EVIDENCE :
irresponsive answers, 476.
effect of, 476.
motions foi', 543.
failure to move for, 543.
motion, waiver of, 543.
because of insufiSciency, 543.
irresponsiveness, 548.
irrelevancy, 543.
STUDY:
expert qualified by, 864, 265.
SUBDIVISIONS OF TIME:
judicial notice of, 365.
SUBJECT-MATTER:
of writing, evidence to explain, 330-322, 335, 336.
SUBMISSION TO ARBITRATION:
facts under, testimony to show, 447.
SUBMISSION- OF EVIDENCE:
to the jury, 80-32.
SUBMITTING TO JURY:
prima facie case in criminal trials, 384
SUMMONS :
witness privileged from service of a, 420.
680 INDEX.
References are to pages.
SUBPfENA (see Duces Tecum; Subpcena):
defined. 407.
fees, 4U8.
toaveling expenses, 408.
duces tecum, 411, 418.
in criminal cases, 410.
when unnecessary, 411.
time of service, 413.
mode of service, 413.
allowance of time to witness, 413.
notice to witness, 413.
penalty for disobeying, 413.
primary evidence of service, 414.
parol to show non-attendance, 414
disobedience to attachment in case of, 419, 420.
power of the legislature to issue, 423.
SUBPCENA DUCES TECUM :
to obtain production of telegrams, 263.
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS :
death of, 194.
may testify to testator's mental state, 288.
defined, 193.
proof by, 192-194.
signature of, by maris, 185.
impeachment of, by party calling, 502.
not by showing bad character, 503,
SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE :
matter of essential description, 36, 37.
value, quantity, time, place, etc., 39.
formal allegations, 38, 89.
proof of contracts, 40, 41.
variance, 41, 45, 46.
in criminal trials, 43, 46.
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE:
required to convert an absolute deed into a mortgage, 330.
to go to the jury, 27. '
when presumed, 355.
SUFFERINGS:
declarations of, 69.
SUICIDE :
presumption of death by, from absence, 357.
SUMMARY OF FACTS OBSERVED:
given by witness who is not an expert, 268.
SUN-KISE :
judicial notice of, 371.
INDEX. 681
Beferences are to pageSt
SUPERSCRIPTION:
of deposition, 533.
SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVITS:
defined, their utility, 526.
SUPPLEMENTARY OATH:
of defendant, 480.
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS:
best evidence of, 51.
SUPPLYING OMISSIONS :
in writings, 307, 308.
SUPPRESSION :
of material facts, burden of proof, 388.
SUPPRESSING DEPOSITIONS, 533, 534.
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE:
by police officials, 135.
presumptions from, 343, 344.
SURETY:
not bound by rule excluding parol evidence, 304.
when bound by admission of principal. 99, 100.
to secure the attendance of a witness, 414.
SURGEON'S DIARY :
entry in, as evidence, 80, 82.
SURPLUSAGE :
in indictments defined, 37, 44, 45.
SURPRISE:
defined, 550.
remedy of party in case of, 550.
negligence will not justify the claim of, 551.
SURRENDER:
of lease, must be in writing, 401.
parol, at common law, 401.
SURROGATES' COURTS:
proof of records of, 236, 337.
right to open and close in, 393.
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES:
as res gestae. 74 et seq.
parol evidence of (see Parol Evidence^
SURVEYOR: ^
evidence of to show monuments, 57.
declarations of, when admissible, 160.
as expert witnesses, 291.
SURVEYS:
as evidence, 80.
6S2 INDEX.
Beforences are to pages.
SURVIVING PARTY:
wlien incompetent as a witness, 436, 437.
(see also Peesonal Transaction.)
SURVIVORSHIP :
presumption of, 358, 359.
SUSPICfON OF GUILT:
diverted by false confession, 125.
SWEARING THE WITNESS (see Oath).
SYMBOLS :
parol evidence to explain, 324
SYMPTOMS:
evidence of non-expert showing, 3S3.
T.
TABLES:
showing expectation of life, 218.
TAKING THE VIEW :
discretionary, 490, 491.
consent of parties to. 490.
in jury trial in equity, 491.
when ordered suasponte, 491.
necessity must be shown, 491.
presence of judge, 491.
knowledge thus acquired is not evidence, 491.
presence of accused at, 491.
oral evidence inadmissible while taking, 493.
in proceeding to condemn land, 493.
after summing up, 492.
privately by jury, not allowed, 488.
TALKATIVE WITNESS:
may be checked by court, 473.
TAMPERING WITH WITNESS:
attempt at may be shown, 498.
bias caused by, 525.
TAX SALES:
presumption of regularity, 341.
TEACHERS OF WRITING:
as witnesses to handwriting, 203.
TECHNICAL DEFECTS:
in affidavits, may be amended, 523.
TECHNICAL TERMS :
parol language to explain, 318.
INDEX. 6S3
Beferences are to pages.
TELEGRAMS:
primary evidence of, 53, 53.
contents of, may be proved orally, 53,
not privileged, 263, 263.
presumption of delivery, 348.
TELEPHONE :
admissions by, 89, 133, 123.
judicial notice of, 365.
agency of operator, 133.
recognition of speaker, 123.
TENANT :
admissions of. 89.
TENANTS IN COMMON:
admissions of, 91.
parol partition among, 898, 399.
TENDER:
primary evidence of, 54
TERMS :
of science, evidence to explain, 318,
TERMS OF COURT:
judicial notice of, 378, 379.
" TERMS, TWO MONTHS : "
evidence to explain, 318.
TEST:
to determine burden of proof, 383.
TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY:
burden of proof, 384.
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION (see Wilis).
TESTATOR:
judgment against, binds devisee, 231.
admissions by, bind devisee, 89, 190.
mental capacity of, 385-388.
declarations showing capacity, 333.
when declarations are admissible, 335.
what constitutes his signature, 405.
statutory incompetency of interested persons as witnesses against, 433.
TESTING HANDWRITING (see Hakdwriting).
TEXT-BOOKS :
as evidence of foreign law, 313.
THIRD PARTIES: *
declarations of, against interest. 162-166.
(see also Strangers' Declarations.)
entries made by, 78.
confessions of guilt by, 135.
684 INDEX.
References are to pages.
THREATS:
when relevant in a trial for homicide, 27.
evidence to show, 69.
when rendering silence inadmissible as a confession, 135-128i
persons who make, 135, 136.
TICKET :
when a writing, 174.
TIMBER (see Growing Timber).
TIME (see also Date) :
allegation and proof of, 39.
proof of in indictments, 43.
of alterations, 181, 183.
required to stop train, 288.
as affecting relevancy, 17-20.
of ret! gestce, 77, 78.
required to repair house, 290.
opinion evidence to show time of an event, 267.
as an element in experiments in court, 296.
presumption from lapse of, 336-341.
in proving alibi, 385.
of making contradictory statements, 503.
TIME BOOKS:
their use as evidence, 85, 86.
TOMBSTONES :
inscriptions on, as pedigree, 73.
TORTURE :
as a means of procuring evidence, 3.
TOWNS :
admissions of inhabitants of, 99.
judicial notice of, 368, 369.
TRACES OF AN ABORTION:
physician's evidence to show, 385.
TRADE :
opinion evidence to, 288-291.
TRADE TERMS (see Technical TbrmsX
TRADITIONARY EVIDENCE:
defined, 71-74.
(see also Pedigree ; General Refutation.)
TRAINS :
their management, speed, etc, 288.
TRANSPORTATION :
opinion evidence, 288-391.
TRAVERSE JURORS :
confidential communications, 258.
INDKX. 685
Eeforenoes are to pages.
TREASON:
confessions of. 130.
number of Witnesses in trials for, 563, 564.
TREATIES :
judicial notice of, 377, 378.
TREATISES :
use of, in examining expert, 375.
TREES, MARKS BLAZED ON :
primary evidence of, 57.
TRESPASS:
evidence to show manner, 270.
TRIALS <see Burden or Proof ; Right to Open and Close). '|
TROVER:
formal allegations in, 38.
TRUSTS:
under the statute of frauds, 399, 400.
parol evidence to establish, 312.
TRUSTEE :
admissions of, binding on beneficiary, 91, 100, 102.
judgment against, when binding ou beneficiar}', 233.
TRUTH:
of libel, burden of proof, 390.
TRUTHFULNESS :
of witness, cross-examination to ascertain, 484
presumption of, 6.
TRUTH OF WRITING :
opinion evidence of, 267.
u.
ULTRA VIRES :
burden of proving, 389.
UNCHASTITY:
proof of, to impeach, 507.
UNDERSTANDING:
witness may be asked his, 472.
UNDERWRITERS:
as expert witnesses, 294, 295.
admissions of, 91.
UNDUE INFLUENCE:
in procuring execution of will, parol evidence to show, i
admissibility of declarations to show, 68.
UNIFORMITY:
necessity for, in usage, 316, 317.
6S6 INDEX.
Keferences are to pages.
UNIMPORTANT FACTS:
questioniDg on, 475.
UNINTENTIONAL OMISSIONS:
may be sliown, 308.
UNLIQUIDATED DAMAGES:
light to open and close in cases of, 390-393.
UNRECORDED DEED:
when valid, 188.
effect of redelivery of, 401.
UNSWORN ANSWER:
in equity, its effect, 431.
UNVEILING :
of party or witness in court, 298.
UN WHOLESOMENESS :
of food, evidence of, 284
UNWILLINGNESS:
to believe witness under oath, 505, 506.
USAGE :
definition of, 316.
presumed to be tnown to parties, 316.
evidence to show, 316, 317.
usage must be general, 817.
evidence of, inadmissible, 317.
of insurance company, evidence of, 895.
when judicially noticed, 373.
of foreign country, must be proved, 212.
USE OF SCIENTIFIC BOOKS:
to test expert, 27.5.
USURY:
burden of proof of, 389.
right to open and close where defense is, 393.
VALIDITY:
of will, right to open and close in issue of, 393.
burden of proof, 384.
VALUE:
allegation of and proof, 39.
of expert testimony. 276.
judicial notice of, 366.
of machinery, 290.
of house, 290.
refusal to produce, creates presumption of, 344
INDEX. • 687
Beferences are to pages.
VALUE, EVIDENCE OF:
of services, 291.
of animals, 293.
of merchandise, 291.
of land, 392.
qualification of witness to, 393.
future value, 293.
value of securities, 394.
VALUE OF LAND :
relevancy of evidence to show, 17.
VARIANCE :
defined, 41, 45, 46.
VELOCITY (see Speed).
V^NUE:
change of, for convenience of witnesses, 415, 416.
of certificate of acknowledgment, 189.
VENUE IN AFFIDAVITS:
should appear, 537.
absence may invalidate, 538.
VERACITY :
of witnesses (see Impeachment).
VERBAL ADMISSIONS:
when inadmissible, 116.
when estoppels, 130.
VERBAL AND WRITTEN DECLARATIONS;
distinguished, 78.
•VERDICT:
setting aside, 31.
proof by copy, 220,
when one may be directed, 38.
VERIFICATION:
of answer in equity, its effect, 431.
of dying declaration under oath, 146.
VERIFICATION OF PLEADINGS:
eflfect of, 107, 108.
VERTEBRA :
exhibition of, to jury to explain evidence, 61.
VESSEL:
register of, as evidence, 316.
proof of seaworthiness of, 289.
proof of management of, 38Qi
VESTED RIGHT:
to witness fees, 411.
688 INDEX.
Beferences are to pages.
VICAR:
his books as evidence for his successor, 166.
VIEW (see Taking the View).
VITAL STATISTICS:
registers of, as evidence, 310.
VIDELICET :
defined, 38, 39.
VOICE :
as showing identity of speaker at telephone, 133.
VOLUMINOUS WRITINGS:
primary evidence of, 57.
VOLUNTARY CHARACTER:
' confessions must possess, 126, 187.
VOLUNTARY EXHIBITION (see Exhibition).
VOTING:
as evidence of naturalization, SO.
w.
WAIVER:
of privilege of communications —
to attorney, 253, 853.
to husband or wife, 347-349.
to physician, 359, 260.
of fees by the witness, 408.
of privilege from arrest by witness, 431.
by personal representative, to exclude interested witness, 436, 437.
(see also Personal Transactions.)
of privilege from incrimiuating questions, 521, 523.
of constitutional privileges by the accused, 497.
of objections to depositions, 533.
of objections to the reception or rejection of evidence, 539.
of exceptions, 541, 543.
WALLS:
di-yness of, 390.
WANT OF CONSIDERATION:
as a defense, right to open and close, 392.
burden of proof, 383.
WAR:
judicial notice of, 867.
WARNING WITNESSES:
by the court, 473.
WAVES :
size of, 289.
INDEX. 689
Beferences are to pages.
WEAPON :
allegation of, in homicide, 38, 44
use of, to explain the evidence, 60.
causing iojurieB, 279.
presumption from use of, 361, 368,
in the jmy-room, 490. ' •
"WEARING APPAREL:
evidence to show value of, 293.
blood-stains on, 61.
WEATHER:
opinion evidence of, 270.
WEIGHT:
of extra-judicial confessions, 134, 135.
of expert evidence, 276.
of admissions, 114, 116.
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE:
distinguished from burden of proof, 382-384
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES:
judicial notice of character of, 366.
WI-IOLESOMENESS :
of food and drink, 284
WIDOW:
when an interested witness, 443.
WIFE:
when bound by her husband's admissions, 97, 98.
confidential communications to, 247-258.
as a witness to non-access or intoxication of her husband, 249L
WILFUL PERJURY:
presumptions from, 513.
WILLS:
when ancient, need not be proved, 148k
presumptions as to alterations in, 182.
when admissible as evidence, 226, 227.
declarations inadmissible to vary, 68,
writings incorporated in, by reference, 309.
parol evidence to explain, 322, 325-329.
required to be in writing, 404
attestation of, 404.
of personal property, 404.
place of signature of, 405,
"WITHOUT RECOURSE:"
indorsers, their competency as witnesses, 445, 446.
44
coo INDEX.
" Eefcrenoes are to pages.
WITNESSES :
who are, 411.
distinguished from affiant and deponent* 411.
examination of, at preliminary examination, 131.
admissibility of tlieir testimony when subsequently absent or disquali-
fied, 167-173.
husband and wife as, 244-349.
attorneys as, 349-255.
police officials as, 355.
officials as, 256.
jurors as, 257, 358.
clergymen as, 258, 259.
physicians as, 359, 360.
WITHDRAWAL OF WITNESSES (see SEPARATiNa Witnesses); '
WORDS:
meaning of, will be noticed, 365.
WORK AND SERVICES:
Yalue,of, 291.
WOUNDS: ■
opinions as to nature, cause and effect, 278,
WRITING:
hypothetical questions may be put in, 274
defined, 174, 185.
(see also Handwriting.)
WRITINGS :
variance in proof of, 40, 41.
when ancient, 148-152.
as evidence of general reputation, 160, 161.
use of, to refresh memory, 199.
testing with chemiqals in court, , 296.
person signing, is presumed to have read them, 361.
obtained by subpoena duces tecum, 411, 412.
when not evidence, are excluded from jui-y, 489, 490.
(see Parol Evidence as Related to ; Memoranda to Re;frpsh
Memory.)
WRITINGS OUT OF JURISDICTION:
best evidence of, 51.
WRITING TEACHERS :
as witnesses to handwriting, 203.
WRIT OF ERROR:
defined and distinguished from appeal, 557.
purpose of, 557.
does not review facts, 557.
may be brought for a notorious mistake, 557.
as employed in America, 558.
(see also Appeals.)
INDEX. , 691
Beferenoes are to pages,
WRITS (see Returns on.)
WRITTEN CONFESSIONS:
on the preliminaiy examination, 131-134.
should be signed by the accused, 133.
parol evidence inadmissible, 133.
presumption of regularity, 133.
do not render distinct parol confessions inadmissible, 133.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE (see Public Records and Statute of Feauds).
WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS :
best evidence of, 49-57.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11