Smith v. Davidson

41 F. 172
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota·Decided December 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Nelson, J.

I think the court erred in permitting the original answer, sworn to by one of the attorneys for the defendant, to be offered in evidence as an admission by the defendant of the .facts therein stated. An amended answer having been filed to take the place of the original, it should have been excluded from the jury. The ruling of the court having been properly excepted to, the defendant is entitled to a new trial for such error. New trial granted. Costs to abide the event of the suit.

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

Smith v. Davidson, 41 F. 172 (circtdmn 1889).

41 F. 172 (Smith v. Davidson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weismantle v. Petros
19 S.E.2d 594 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1942)
Bernard v. Pittsburg Coal Co.
100 N.W. 396 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1904)