Polk's Lessee v. Minner

Supreme Court of Delaware

Polk's Lessee v. Minner

1 Del. Cas. 24

DecidedOctober 15, 1794

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 24 (Polk's Lessee v. Minner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Polk's Lessee v. Minner, 1 Del. Cas. 24 (Del. 1794).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The practice over the water is different from the practice in our courts as to notice; notice here is given to the party (unless the rule provides otherwise) because the attorneys are not generally resident. There the attorney is commonly present and the party not resident. Depositions cannot be read against those who have not had a cross examination; but we will not say whether they shall be evidence until in the course of the trial we see whether Mrs. Thorn is interested in this cause. (IV. B. They were not afterwards read.)

Defendant’s counsel offered in evidence an old plat of the lands with an explanation signed and sealed by the names of two, whom plaintiff’s witness said were the sheriff and surveyor [25]*25at that time there, but without being able to tell where it was found, without proof of handwriting and without the seal of any office, and objected to for those reasons. Contra. It was said papers gain authenticity by lapse of time and the proof of so ancient a paper will on that account be dispensed with especially because plaintiff’s witness give evidence of such a transaction. 1 Morg.Ess. 140, 1 Wils. 170 were read.

Plaintiff having given evidence of such a transaction, you may read the paper, the credibility to be left to the jury.

Point of law saved, but verdict for plaintiff; rule to show cause why a new trial should not be had.

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

Per Curiam.

The practice over the water is different from the practice in our courts as to notice; notice here is given to the party (unless the rule provides otherwise) because the attorneys are not generally resident. There the attorney is commonly present and the party not resident. Depositions cannot be read against those who have not had a cross examination; but we will not say whether they shall be evidence until in the course of the trial we see whether Mrs. Thorn is interested in this cause. (IV. B. They were not afterwards read.)

Defendant’s counsel offered in evidence an old plat of the lands with an explanation signed and sealed by the names of two, whom plaintiff’s witness said were the sheriff and surveyor [25]*25at that time there, but without being able to tell where it was found, without proof of handwriting and without the seal of any office, and objected to for those reasons. Contra. It was said papers gain authenticity by lapse of time and the proof of so ancient a paper will on that account be dispensed with especially because plaintiff’s witness give evidence of such a transaction. 1 Morg.Ess. 140, 1 Wils. 170 were read.

Plaintiff having given evidence of such a transaction, you may read the paper, the credibility to be left to the jury.

Point of law saved, but verdict for plaintiff; rule to show cause why a new trial should not be had.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. Cas. 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polks-lessee-v-minner-del-1794.