Clark v. Clark

83 A. 515, 76 N.H. 430, 1912 N.H. LEXIS 65
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMay 7, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 83 A. 515 (Clark v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clark v. Clark, 83 A. 515, 76 N.H. 430, 1912 N.H. LEXIS 65 (N.H. 1912).

Opinion

Peaslee, J.

By taking the plaintiff’s deposition, the defendant made the plaintiff a witness in the case. A person giving a deposition is a witness, and his answers to the questions put to him are testimony. The act of the administrator in thus calling the adverse party to testify in the cause was an election on his part to testify generally. The finding in the case that there was no such election at the time of the trial is a conclusion of law and not controlling here. Palmer v. Bass, 69 N. H. 300. Having so elected, he could not withdraw his election to the manifest detriment of his opponent.

The agreement made by counsel before the deposition was taken does not affect the result. It merely relieved the administrator from the duty to file the deposition at once. P. S., c. 225, s. 11. It did not take from the deposition its character as evidence, but merely left it to be dealt with like a deposition of one not a party.

The understanding of the administrator’s counsel, that by this agreement he had avoided the usual legal consequences of calling the adverse party as a witness, is immaterial. The opposing counsel had no such understanding, and the agreement of the parties does not go to such an extent. The plaintiff was a competent witness for himself at the trial.

Exception sustained.

All concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Newport Realty, Inc. v. Lynch
878 A.2d 1021 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2005)
Mill Realty Associates v. Zoning Board of Review of Coventry
721 A.2d 887 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1998)
MILL REALTY ASOCIATES v. Zoning Bd.
721 A.2d 887 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1998)
Parrillo v. Riccitelli
123 A.2d 248 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1956)
Day v. Edmondson
27 A.2d 904 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1942)
Marwell Construction Co. v. Mayor of Providence
200 A. 976 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1938)
Clayton v. Ogden State Bank
26 P.2d 545 (Utah Supreme Court, 1933)
Bennett v. Johnson
5 R.I. Dec. 71 (Superior Court of Rhode Island, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 A. 515, 76 N.H. 430, 1912 N.H. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-clark-nh-1912.