EDWARD BROUGHTON, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH CROSBY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, holding that a party cannot be compelled to read depositions they have taken but chosen not to use as evidence. The court found no error in the trial court's refusal to order the plaintiff to read depositions.
No, the lower court did not err. A party cannot be compelled to read depositions they have taken; the opposing party has the right to read them if they choose.
“We think it very clear that the Court would have no more right to order a plaintiff to read on the trial depositions taken by him, though crossed by defendant and on file and opened by plaintiff, than it would have to order him to examine a witness whom he had brought into court by subpoena.”
This quote establishes the core legal principle that a party cannot be compelled to introduce evidence they do not wish to use.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in the lower court took depositions, which were filed and opened. The defendant apparently wanted the plaintiff to read these deposition…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
DuPONT, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The only error assigned in this case is that “ the Court erred in not ordering the plaintiff below to read the depositions taken by him, on the trial.” We think it very clear that the Court would have no more right to order a plaintiff to read on the trial depositions taken by him, though crossed by defendant and on file and opened by plaintiff, than it would have to order him to examine a witness whom he had brought into court by subpoena. The defendant would have the right to read such a deposition as testimony on his own behalf, or to examine such a witness as his own, but certainly he would have no right to compel the plaintiff: to read the one or to introduce and examine the other. Counsel for appellee moves for damages as in case of a fidvolous appeal, but as it has not been made to “ appear to ns that this appeal has been taken merely for delay,” (Thompson’s Dig., 449,) damages are refused.
Let the judgment of the. Court, below be affirmed with-costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Matter of: The Estate of William H. Benedict, 117 Fla. 472 (Fla. 1934)…ut we perceive no reason why it may not be applied with equal force to any frivolous and vexatious appeal or writ of error prosecuted to this court against good faith or merely for delay. See Richards v. Nall, 8 Fla. 369 (1859); Broughton v. Crosby, 9 Fla. 254 (1860); Stafford v. Anders, 10 Fla. 211 (1860); Williams v. La Penotiere, 25 Fla. 473, 6 Sou. Rep. 167 (1889); Redmond v. Donaldson, 35 Fla. 167, 17 Sou. Rep. 70 (1895); Dzialynski v. Bank of Jacksonville, 23 Fla. 346, 2 Sou. Rep. 696. It is not to…