Young v. Smith
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Jackson Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The Circuit Court ought to have permitted the plaintiffs to read a part of Smith’s deposition in chief, and to reserve a part as rebutting evidence, because the portion sought to be read was strictly evidence in chief, and the portion sought to be reserved was strictly rebutting evidence, and not necessary to the narrative of the witness. (1 Greenl.
Read the full summary
Error to Jackson Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The Circuit Court ought to have permitted the plaintiffs to read a part of Smith’s deposition in chief, and to reserve a part as rebutting evidence, because the portion sought to be read was strictly evidence in chief, and the portion sought to be reserved was strictly rebutting evidence, and not necessary to the narrative of the witness. (1 Greenl. Ev. secs. 51 and 52; R. C. 1845, tit. Depositions, sec. 29, p. 419; Calhoun v. Hays, 8 Watts & Sarg. 130.) II. The court below ought to have stricken out…
1Opinion of the CourtRylaND, Judge
We do not perceive what injury the plaintiffs below received by the court’s overruling their motion to be permitted to read only certain portions of the deposition of the defendant Smith, which the plaintiffs had taken, to the jury as evidence in chief, and afterwards to be permitted to read the balance of the deposition as rebutting testimony. We will not interfere in the discretionary determination of the lower *345court,' in such matters, especially where no injury appears to follow to either party. To say the least of this objection to the ruling of the court below, it is captious, and we…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lawrence v. BarkerNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Rice v. MortonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
- Rankin v. HarperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Young v. CroughtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
3Cited by5 opinions
- Carnie-Goudie Mfg. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1930
- Keim & McMillan Hardware Co. v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- McCue v. SchweerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
- State v. WilsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Dawson v. PogueOregon Supreme Court · 1888