Ealahan v. Ealahan
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtKeeler, J.
Evidence of the deeds and proceedings above referred to was clearly admissible. These instruments tended to prove the ownership by the defendant of a certain interest in real estate, and were certainly admissible for that purpose. For the defendant to claim that because of the existence of a certain deed not offered at the time, the evidence offered could not be received, is to beg the question. If plaintiff neglected to offer any deed claimed to affect the title she did so at her peril, but such neglect does not in any way qualify her right to offer evidence in itself admissible.
One ground…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hunter v. HunterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Gray v. FinchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1855
- Chillingworth v. Eastern Tinware Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Cherokee & Pittsburg Coal & Mining Co. v. StoopSupreme Court of Kansas · 1896
- Donahue v. ColemanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1882
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Quarry Knoll II Corp. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Pringle v. HunsickerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Deusen v. Dratch, No. Cv 95 0068758 (May 7, 1996)Connecticut Superior Court · 1996
- Shawmut Bank Connecticut v. L R Realty, No. 523134 (Jun. 20, 1995)Connecticut Superior Court · 1995