Legal Opinion
Keller v. President, Directors & Co. of Farmers Bank
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided February 2, 1942No. 23PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Rodney, J.,
held “that it is within the sound discretion of a trial court to allow testimony from a summary rather than to compel a party to offer in evidence voluminous records and to trace numerous individual items from many volumes. 4 Wigmore (3rd Edition), Sec. 1230; Curry v. Charles Warner Co., 2 Marv. 98, 42 A. 425; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Mayor and Council of Wilmington, 17 Del. Ch. 285, 157 A. 208. In some cases the witness has been allowed to refresh his recollection from the summary, and in others the summary has been admitted into evidence. For either course to be pursued it…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Union Tool Co. v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Glassell Development Co. v. Citizens' Natlional Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Detroit Piston Ring Co. v. Wayne County & Home Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Kansas City Title & Trust Co. v. Fourth National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1932
- Masonic Benefit Ass'n v. First State BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Cheswold Volunteer Fire Co. v. Lambertson Construction Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1985
- Worrel v. Farmers Bank of State of Del.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1981
- Borden v. SinskeyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Shaw v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1978
- Blake v. Town of Delaware CityDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1977
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.