Phenix Mutual Life Insurance v. Clark
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Debt, on a bond, signed by one Dudley, an agent of the plaintiffs, as principal, and by one Moore, the general agent of the plaintiffs, the defendant, and others as sureties. There was evidence tending to show that Dudley, at and prior to the date of the bond, was largely indebted to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Debt, on a bond, signed by one Dudley, an agent of the plaintiffs, as principal, and by one Moore, the general agent of the plaintiffs, the defendant, and others as sureties. There was evidence tending to show that Dudley, at and prior to the date of the bond, was largely indebted to the plaintiffs. Subject to the plaintiffs’ exception, the defendant was permitted to testify that he would not have signed the bond if he had known of this indebtedness, and if Moore had not previously signed the bond as a surety. He testified that on several occasions, prior as well as subsequent to the date of…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
It is competent for a party or other witness to testify with what intention, and upon what operative influence, he did a certain act, whenever the intention and the controlling influence are material. Norris v. Morrill, 40 N. H. 395, 401; Hale v. Taylor, 45 N. H. 405.
It is contrary to our practice to permit a deposition to be used on a trial as substantive evidence in the cause, if the deponent is in court, and is produced or offered as a witness by the party objecting to the deposition (Hayward v. Barron, 38 N. H. 366); but the declarations or admissions of an adverse party may always be„…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cote v. CompanySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
- Zogoplos v. BrownSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
- Woodman v. ClaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879