Eder v. Reilly

51 N.W. 226, 48 Minn. 437, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 435
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedFebruary 15, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 N.W. 226 (Eder v. Reilly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eder v. Reilly, 51 N.W. 226, 48 Minn. 437, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 435 (Mich. 1892).

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

It is apparent that on the trial the defendant was permitted to state from the bills rendered'to him by his bricklayers the number of brick that went into the sewer. The bills were not verified as correctly setting forth the number of brick, either by him or by the persons who made them. They were not evidence, nor could they be referred to by the witness to refresh or recall his recollection, of the number of brick put into the sewer; for although, to justify a witness refreshing his recollection from a writing, it may not be necessary that he should have made it, nor that he should be able himself to state that it was correctly made, its correctness must be in some way verified. The dangers in allowing witnesses to refer to writings not verified are obvious. The bill of the brick association stands on the same footing with those of the bricklayers.

Order reversed.

Dickenson, J., took no part in the decision.

(Opinion published 51 N. W. Rep. 226.)

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

Related

State v. Patton
164 S.W. 223 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Douglas v. Leighton
58 N.W. 827 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 N.W. 226, 48 Minn. 437, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eder-v-reilly-minn-1892.