Kendall v. Brownson
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit on a note dated March 28, 1860, signed by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff or order. The defence was payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff about a month after the date of the note. The execution of the note was admitted under the rule and not denied on trial; and the only question of fact in the cause was whether the note was so paid. The plaintiff and defendant were both witnesses, each for himself.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a note dated March 28, 1860, signed by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff or order. The defence was payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff about a month after the date of the note. The execution of the note was admitted under the rule and not denied on trial; and the only question of fact in the cause was whether the note was so paid. The plaintiff and defendant were both witnesses, each for himself. In examining the defendant his own counsel, were permitted by the court.in the exercise of its discretion, to put leading questions, to which the plaintiff excepted.…
1Opinion of the CourtPerlet, C. J.
It would seem to be a well established rule of practice, that in certain cases the court have a discretion to allow leading questions; and in some jurisdictions it is held that this discretion is unlimited, and that the exercise of it cannot be revised in another tribunal or in a case reserved. Bliss v. Sherman, 47 Me. 248, 253 ; Parsons v. Hough, 38 Me. 137; Black v. The Camden & Amboy R. R., 45 Barbour.
In this State we must regard it as settled that the discretion of the court to allow leading questions is not unlimited; that it can only be exercised in a proper case; and that in order to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Allan v. Vanmeter's DeviseesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Parsons v. HuffSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854
- Bliss v. ShumanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1859
- McLendon & Robinson v. HamblinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Speakman v. SpeakmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mast Road Grain & Building Materials Co. v. Ray Piet, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1985
- Lipski v. PolonskySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
- Hollman v. Exeter Banking Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970