Critchelow's Admr. v. Hagerman
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.