Ludenham v. Richards'

Delaware Court of Common Pleas

Ludenham v. Richards'

1 Del. Cas. 458

DecidedApril 15, 1798

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 458 (Ludenham v. Richards') is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Delaware Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ludenham v. Richards', 1 Del. Cas. 458 (Del. Super. Ct. 1798).

Pincite

Opinion

Bassett, C. J.,

said that it was not material by whom the entries were made. It was still the book of the party and admissible under the Act of Assembly. The second objection he considered as fatal. He never would admit a book fabricated after the death of a man to prove charges which had no existance during the party’s life. It was rightly said the precedent would be extremely dangerous. Bad men might be encouraged to make accounts against the estates of deceased persons reflecting on the difficulty, nay the impossibility of detection, when the person who alone perhaps could have knowledge of the transaction was for ever removed out of the way.

Johns, J.,

said he was decidedly of opinion that the book was inadmissible and that he fully concurred in what had been said by the Chief Justice as to the danger of admitting accounts not made till after the death of the party charged.

Book rejected.

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

Bassett, C. J.,

said that it was not material by whom the entries were made. It was still the book of the party and admissible under the Act of Assembly. The second objection he considered as fatal. He never would admit a book fabricated after the death of a man to prove charges which had no existance during the party’s life. It was rightly said the precedent would be extremely dangerous. Bad men might be encouraged to make accounts against the estates of deceased persons reflecting on the difficulty, nay the impossibility of detection, when the person who alone perhaps could have knowledge of the transaction was for ever removed out of the way.

Johns, J.,

said he was decidedly of opinion that the book was inadmissible and that he fully concurred in what had been said by the Chief Justice as to the danger of admitting accounts not made till after the death of the party charged.

Book rejected.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. Cas. 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludenham-v-richards-delctcompl-1798.