Gardner v. Kimball
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, signed “ Harriet G. Kimball, by Walter Griffin, attorney in fact.” The note was referred to in depositions read at the trial, as marked “ Exhibit A.” A written paper, marked “ Exhibit A,” and purporting to be the note,,was found by the court to have been marked and sent with the depositions by the magistrate who wrote them, though it was not attached to them. This paper was read in evidence as the note, subject to the defendants’ exception.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, signed “ Harriet G. Kimball, by Walter Griffin, attorney in fact.” The note was referred to in depositions read at the trial, as marked “ Exhibit A.” A written paper, marked “ Exhibit A,” and purporting to be the note,,was found by the court to have been marked and sent with the depositions by the magistrate who wrote them, though it was not attached to them. This paper was read in evidence as the note, subject to the defendants’ exception. What purpoi’ted to be a copy, certified from the records by the recorder of Cook county, Illinois, of the power of…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The object of annexing to a deposition a note or other paper referred to in it, is to insure identification, and that the paper may be in court when the deposition is read in evidence. But the court found that the note read in evidence at the trial of this cause, though not attached to the depositions, was marked and sent with them to the court by the magistrate who wrote them; and this is sufficient identification. The note was properly read in evidence.
The objection to the copy of the power of attorney as evidence was not seasonably made. Ordinarily, objections to evidence, unless made when…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Story v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
- Wik v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1940