Huston v. Johnson
North Dakota Supreme Court
From a judgment of tbe District Court of Stutsman County, Ooffy, J., defendant appeals. Tbe essential and necessary rules of law governing tbe admission of secondary evidence were not complied witb. A notice to produce tbe original letter was not given. Eead v. Chambers, — Tex. Civ. App. —, 45 S. W. 742; Jameson v. Officer, 15 Tex. Civ.
Read the full summary
From a judgment of tbe District Court of Stutsman County, Ooffy, J., defendant appeals. Tbe essential and necessary rules of law governing tbe admission of secondary evidence were not complied witb. A notice to produce tbe original letter was not given. Eead v. Chambers, — Tex. Civ. App. —, 45 S. W. 742; Jameson v. Officer, 15 Tex. Civ. App.- 212, 39 S. W. 190; Smith v. Holbrook, 99 Ga. 256, 25 S. E. 627; Foster v. New-brougb, 58 N. Y. 481; Westinghouse Co. v. Tilden, 56 Neb. 129, 76 N. W. 416; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 497, and cases cited. Where both a general and specific denial are employed…
1Opinion
On Petition for Rebearing.
CHRISTIANSON, T.
A reversal of tbe judgment in this case was ordered for errors in tbe exclusion and admission of testimony. In the former opinion we held that tbe admission of a certain letter (exhibit B) was prejudicial error. A petition for rehearing forcibly presents tbe 'proposition that no sufficient objection was made to this exhibit. Tbe objection, as stated in tbe former opinion, was that tbe same was “irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and no foundation for its introduction bad been laid.” Tbe facts surrounding tbe admission of tbe evidence, as well as…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Sparf v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Rush v. FrenchArizona Supreme Court · 1874
- Roche v. Llewellyn Iron Works Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Townshend v. TownshendSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Morehouse v. MorehouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.