Duck v. Selected Investments Corp.

By majority, a new rule of evidence is construed, at variance with English and American jurisprudence. It is inherently erroneous; the advent of it transcends the importance of the law of usury involved in this particular case, for, by the new rule, the want of facts to constitute a cause of action in any field of law is extended by a fiction.

The law of evidence, said by the late inimitable Professor Wigmore, to be already chaotic in the area including this jurisdiction, is by the error further corrupted. The majority opinion states:

“Documentary evidence relied on by defendant in his answer,…