Smith v. Haran
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Hartman
Because I would hold, on remand, the Harans should not be permitted to testify directly that decedent never gave them money in exchange for the promissory note, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority’s opinion which holds to the contrary. There are other methods available to defendants to prove their case, if such they have, without standing the Dead-Man’s Act (Act) on its head, as the majority’s disposition accomplishes.
Both Hartman and Rerack, discussed in the majority opinion, are entirely distinguishable from the instant facts. The "negative” testimony or "nonevent” in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hoem v. ZiaIllinois Supreme Court · 1994
- Martin v. ShaenWashington Supreme Court · 1946
- In Re Estate of MasonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986
- Matter of Estate of OsbornAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
- Bauer v. RiggsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.