Ulmer v. Austill
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to Dallas County court. Indebitatus assumpsit. The questions which arose in this case, were confined to the execution of a commission to examine an absent witness. At the trial of this cause, before the County court of Dallas, the plaintiff offered to read in evidence, the depo- ■ sition of a witness, taken under the third section of the 'act of the twenty-third of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven.
Read the full summary
Error to Dallas County court. Indebitatus assumpsit. The questions which arose in this case, were confined to the execution of a commission to examine an absent witness. At the trial of this cause, before the County court of Dallas, the plaintiff offered to read in evidence, the depo- ■ sition of a witness, taken under the third section of the 'act of the twenty-third of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven. The clerk of the County court made an order on the back of the commission, that the party applying for it should give the defendant, or his attorney, ten days notice of the time…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
The last objection taken to the deposition, 'will be first examined.
*160It is, by no means, improbable that the oath which is signed by the witness, and certified by the justice of the peace, was the only one taken by him. This, if so, would be sufficient to exclude his testimony, as that is not the oath which the law requires to be administered; but the court below was not authorised to arrive at such a conclusion, in opposition to the certificate of its commissioners. They state that the witness was duly sworn, and it may be, that another and a legal oath was administered to the witness, by…
2Cited by5 opinions
- King v. KingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Gulf City Insurance v. StephensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Herndon v. GivensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Roberts v. FlemingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Wilson v. CampbellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858