INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
v.
GUARDIOLA
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 Supreme Court reversed a judgment in an insurance case where the plaintiff sought to prove the quantity of sugar cargo shipped by introducing letters from its own shipping agents stating the number of hogsheads shipped. The Court held that these letters were inadmissible hearsay—mere reports by agents to their principals—and could not be used to prove the facts stated in them against a third party defendant, and their erroneous admission warranted a new trial.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justioe Gray delivered the opinion of the court.
The principal controversy at the trial was whether the cargo shipped consisted of 531 hogsheads, or of 368 hogsheads only.
Upon this, question thfere was much conflicting evidence, and the plaintiffs introduced a number of depositions, taken under commission, at Sagua, including those of the plaintiffs themselves as to what took place at their warehouse, and those of their shipping agents as to what took place at the port some twenty miles below. Annexed to the deposition of one of the plaintiffs were letters written to them by their shipping agents, at the time of the successive shipments, stating the number of hogsheads shipped. Upon these letters being offered in evidence by the plaintiffs, the defendant objected that 'they were irrelevant and incompetent, and duly excepted to the ruling of the court admitting them.
It is too clear for discussion, that these letters, written to the plaintiffs by their own agents, were no part of the transaction of shipping the sugar, but were mere reports by the agents to their principals, and were incompetent, either in themselves, or in corroboration of the testimony of the agents, to-prove the facts recited in the letters, against third persons. Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160, 176; Dwyer v. Dunbar, 5 Wall. 318; United States v. Corwin, ante, 381.
Upon the exceptions to other rulings we give no opinion, because they may be presented in a different aspect upon another trial. To avoid misapprehension, it may be added that, according to the rule heretofore laid down by this court, objections to copies of documents or memoranda, embodied, in or annexed to the depositions, might perhaps more properly have been made by motion to suppress them before the trial, so as to afford opportunity to produce the originals, when those would be competent evidence. York County v. Central Railroad, 3 Wall. 107; Blackburn v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 175, 191.
But the letters do the plaintiffs from their owii agents were absolutely incompetent, and their admission in evidence clearly tended to prejudice the defendant with the jury. Upon this ground
The judgment of the Circuit Court must be remersed, and the case remanded with directions to set-aside the verdict and to order a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (U.S. 1892)
-
Valley Shoe Corp. v. Stout, 98 F.2d 514 (8th Cir. 1938)…ver the objection that it contained self-serving declarations. These inter-office communications were hearsay. Gregory Consolidated Mining Co. v. Starr, 141 U.S. 222, 226, 11 S.Ct. 914, 35 L.Ed. 715 ; Insurance Company of North America v. Guardiola, 129 U.S. 642, 643, 9 S.Ct. 425, 32 L.Ed. 802; Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad Co. v. O’Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 101-103, 7 S.Ct. 118, 30 L.Ed. 299; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160, 69 U.S. 160, 176, 17 L.Ed. 922; Ambler v. Bloedel Donovan Lumber Mills, 9 Cir., 68 F. 2d…1 / 2
-
Armborst v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 25 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1928)…that each one “told me positively that he had no such accident.” TMs testimony was taken subject to the objection that it was hearsay. In our opinion the testimony in question was hearsay, objectionable, and prejudicial. Insurance Co. v. Guardiola, 129 U. S. 642, 9 S. Ct. 425, 32 L. Ed. 802; Vicksburg, etc., Railroad v. O’Brien, 119 U. S. 99, 101, et seq., 7 S. Ct. 118, 30 L. Ed. 299; Harper v. Harper (C. C. A. 4) 252 F. 39, 42. It may well be that the error in admitting hearsay will often be cured if the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160 (U.S. 1864)
- York Co. v. Central Railroad, 3 Wall. 107 (U.S. 1865)
- Blackburn v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 175 (U.S. 1865)
- Dwyer v. Dunbar, 5 Wall. 318 (U.S. 1866)