Newman v. Bradley
Supreme Court of the United States
In tbis case, Howell, wbo was of counsel with the plaintiff, proved tbat tbe defendant, on a citation to show cause of action, &c., acknowledged tbat he borrowed tbe money in question, from tbe plaintiff, but declared, at tbe same time, tbat be bad repaid it.
Read the full summary
In tbis case, Howell, wbo was of counsel with the plaintiff, proved tbat tbe defendant, on a citation to show cause of action, &c., acknowledged tbat he borrowed tbe money in question, from tbe plaintiff, but declared, at tbe same time, tbat be bad repaid it. Tbis was tbe chief evidence to support tbe action ; and Howell and Tod contended, tbat tbe acknowledgment was, of itself, sufficient to charge tbe defendant, but that wbat be said in avoidance of tbe plaintiff’s demand, ought to be proved. G-ilb.. Law of Ev. 51.
1Opinion of the Court
Shipper, President.
This is the very case put in the books, and the rule which is founded upon it, extends generally to all civil suits. When a confession is given in evidence, all that was said must be stated, and the whole, generally speaking, ought to be taken together, unless such circumstances of improbability appear, as will render it necessary for the defendant to prove what he asserts in avoidance of a conceded fact, (a) It is true, there are some occasions when a jury will charge a man with what he acknowledges against himself, and yet refuse to credit him for what he advances in his…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Commonwealth v. WillisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Gough v. St. JohnNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Wilson v. CalvertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Moore v. RossSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Potter v. Inhabitants of WareMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1848
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.