Erickson v. Gill
South Dakota Supreme Court
1DissentBiegelmeier, Judge
While I am in general agreement with Judge HANSON’S opinion. I cannot reach the same result and will endeavor to explain ithis divergence.
At common law and in the absence of a statute providing otherwise, parties to the action and interested persons, although not parties, were incompetent as witnesses, 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, §§ 159, 170; 97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 120; nor was a man bound to furnish his adversary with evidence to be used against himself and discovery by a bill in equity supplied the means to remedy this defect. 17 Am. Jur., Discovery and Inspection, §§ 2 and 3. The general…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Peterson v. PetersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Langford v. IssenhuthSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Butler v. ParrochaSupreme Court of Virginia · 1947
- Ferguson & Co. v. DaughtreySupreme Court of Virginia · 1897
- Morrell Livestock Co. v. Stockman's Commission Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1957
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.