Lewis v. Hughs
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Harper District Court. The opinion states the case. The testimony of T. B. Marsh, taken by deposition and read in evidence, is, in all its material parts, hearsay and incompetent, and should have been excluded by the court from the consideration of the jury; but it was read in evidence over the objection of defendants.
Read the full summary
Error from Harper District Court. The opinion states the case. The testimony of T. B. Marsh, taken by deposition and read in evidence, is, in all its material parts, hearsay and incompetent, and should have been excluded by the court from the consideration of the jury; but it was read in evidence over the objection of defendants. We do not know on what theory the court allowed Marsh to testify as it did, of what Hughs told the witness Marsh, which was not only hearsay, and prejudicial to the defendants below in that way, but it allowed Hughs to manufacture evidence for himself. It is so well…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
F. B. & S. S. Singer, (a firm composed of F. B. Singer and S. S. Singer, father and son, as the sole members,) together with several others as sureties, were indebted to H. W. Lewis in the sum of $4,130, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from October 3, 1888, and on November 21, 1888, Lewis began his action against all of the parties so indebted to him for the recovery of the money and interest. On the 30th day of January, 1889, he caused an order of attachment to issue to the sheriff of Harper county, commanding him to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Phillips v. ReitzSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- Ward v. MastersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
- Cuendet v. LahmerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dodson v. CooperSupreme Court of Kansas · 1893
- Hasie v. ConnorSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
- Schram v. TaylorSupreme Court of Kansas · 1893