RUTHERFORD
v.
GEDDES
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.
A libellant sought to introduce depositions taken in a separate suit without notice to the defendants to establish his case. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's exclusion of the depositions, holding that depositions from an unrelated proceeding where the defendants had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and were not parties cannot be admitted into evidence, particularly when no explanation was provided for why the witnesses were not called to testify in person.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice MILLER,
delivered the opinion of the court.
On the trial of this case in the District Court the libellant procured a decree in his favor mainly upon testimony-found in certain depositions offered by him. To the admission of these depositions in evidence, the defendants objected, and when the objection was overruled they carried the case by appeal to the Circuit Court.
The Circuit Court excluded the depositions, and if the action of that court was correct in this respect, there can be no doubt that its decree dismissing the libel was the necessary result of the case as it stood on the remaining testimony.
The depositions relied on by appellant, were properly ruled out, for the reason that they were taken without notice to defendants, in another suit to which defendants were not parties, and in which they had no right or opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Hor were defendants in any manner privies to either party in the former suit, in which the depositions had been taken. This alone, it is well settled, is a sufficient reason for their exclusion.
But when, to this consideration, it is added, that no reason is shown why the witnesses were not introduced in person, it is quite clear that the Circuit Court was right in rejecting the depositions.
The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the libel is, therefore,
AEEIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitford v. Clark Cnty., 119 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1886)…ene esse.” And in The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9, 15, Chief Justice Marshall said, a deposition taken under the statute de dene esse “ can be read only when the witness himself is unattainable.” See also Harris v. Wall, 7 How. 692, and Rutherford v. Geddes, 4 Wall. 220, 224. It thus appears to have been established at a very early date that depositions taken de dene .’esse'could nót be used in any case at the trial if the presence of the witness' himself was actually attainable, and the party offering the depositi…
-
Dowling v. Isthmian S. S. Corp., 184 F.2d 758 (3d Cir. 1950)…ssion issuing from the court, and when so taken, are not to be considered as taken de bene, but absolute, and may be used without reference to the accessibility of the witness.” Parsons, Shipping (1869), Vol. II, p. 447, citing Rutherford v. Geddes; 4 Wall. 220, 18 L.Ed. 343. “A commission to examine may be issued before issue joined * * *; but special circumstances must be disclosed to warrant it * * Hall, The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty (1809), p. 58. An order to take depositions…
-
Insul-Wool Insulation Corp. v. Home Insulation, Inc., 176 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1949)