Smith v. Davidson

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota

Smith v. Davidson

41 F. 172

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 15, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 F. 172 (Smith v. Davidson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-davidson-circtdmn-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack