TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Critchelow's Admr. v. Hagerman

Critchelow's Admr. v. Hagerman, 1 Ky. Op. 159 (1866)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 26, 1866
Judges
Peters
Citations
1 Ky. Op. 1591866 Ky. LEXIS 240
Headnotes
Statements — Confession — Attorney and Client — Evidence. The statements or confession of a party to an action, in relation to the subject-matter of the controversy, as a general rule, are competent as evidence against him; but such statements or confessions must have been made by him, or made in his presence, and assented to by him. An attorney’s statements made in the absence of his client is not competent evidence.
Summary
APPEAL EROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT-COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Peters

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion oe the Court by Judge Peters:

After appellee’s demurrer to the petition was sustained he withdrew the amended petition and it then was no longer a part of the pleading's in the action.

The statements or confessions of a party to an action in relation to the subject-matter of the controversy as a general rule are competent as evidence against him; but such statements or confessions must have been made by him, or have been made in his presence, and assented to by him.

The statements contained in the amended petition were made, as the attorney proves, by himself in the absence of appellant, that he had never read them, and did not know what the paper con-' tained. They were consequently neither made nor assented to by appellant and should not have been admitted as evidence against him. What weight was given to them by the jury, or what influence they may have had in producing the verdict, is not for us to say; but it is alleged in said amendment that the intestate sold and delivered the mares to appellee, which, if the jury believed to be true, must have been fatal to a recovery in this action. In view of the facts proved by the attorney said amended petition was not competent evidence and was improperly admitted. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1942: 119422026peak 1942 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Weismantle v. Petros19 S.E.2d 594 (W. Va. 1942)

Most recent

  1. Weismantle v. Petros19 S.E.2d 594 (W. Va. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list