Rogers v. Rogers
Superior Court of Delaware
At the trial plaintiff’s counsel asked to be allowed to read to the jury the depositions of two witnesses, examined and cross examined before the examiner in the Court of Chancery in the same case in which the issue had been framed,—said deponents having since died.
Read the full summary
At the trial plaintiff’s counsel asked to be allowed to read to the jury the depositions of two witnesses, examined and cross examined before the examiner in the Court of Chancery in the same case in which the issue had been framed,—said deponents having since died. Counsel for defendant objected, contending that the trial of the issue was a trial de nova, that counsel were entitled to re-examine and cross examine the witnesses, and that the jury should see and hear the witnesses in the case. The Court having first suggested to defendant’s counsel that he examine said depositions with a view…
1Opinion of the Court
Spruance, J.,
charging the jury:
Gentlemen of the jury:—-You have been empanelled to try two issues or questions of fact, which have been sent by the Chancellor to this Court for trial by a jury.
These issues are as follows:
“First. Whether William E. Rogers was of sound and disposing mind and memory, and competent to transact business at the time he executed and delivered to his son, Nathaniel H. Rogers, the judgment note or single bill, bearing date the 23rd day of July, A. D. 1896,for the real debt of $1590.00, payable on the first day of August, A. D. 1896.
“Second. Whether Nathaniel H. Rogers…
2Cited by10 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Parson v. AndersonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1972
- Gibson v. GillespieSuperior Court of Delaware · 1928
- McKnatt v. McKnattCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1915
- Shriver v. DanbyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1919
- State v. VirdenNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1922
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.