TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Charleson v. Hunt

Charleson v. Hunt, Interpleader

Charleson v. Hunt, 27 Mo. 34 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1858
Judges
Richardson
Citations
27 Mo. 34
Cited by 10
Headnotes
1. The fact that a defendant is present in court, during the trial of the cause, in obedience to a subpcena, ready to testify when called, will not render it improper to receive in evidence a deposition of said defendant taken in another cause in which he was a party; though not admissible as a deposition, it may, being signed by him, be received as a written admission.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Cowrt. Plaintiffs commenced a suit by attachment against Edward St. Michel. Eraneis A. Hunt interpleaded, claiming the property attached by virtue of a deed of assignment executed by said St. Michel for the benefit of his creditors. Said Hunt had likewise interpleaded in various other attachment suits commenced by parties other than the plaintiffs in this suit. To prove fraud in the assignment and a knowledge of it on the part of the interpleader, the plaintiffs offered in evidence a deposition of said interpleader taken in one of the other attachment suits in which he had interpleaded. The court excluded it. ' The plaintiff had subpoenaed said Hunt, and he was present in court ready to testify when called. Plaintiffs also called as a witness the notary who took the deposition, and offered to prove by him the declarations and statements of said Hunt contained in his deposition, and proposed that he should read the deposition to refresh his memory. I. The deposition was improperly excluded. (Kritzer v. Smith, 21 Mo. 296 ; Murray v. Oliver, 18 Mo. 405.) I. The deposition was properly excluded. Hunt was in court ready to testify. (See R. 0. 1855, p. 658, § 28.)

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

Opinion of the Court — Richardson

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

Richardson, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court..

On the trial of the issue made by the interplea, the plaintiffs offered in evidence the' deposition of Hunt, which had been previously taken in a suit betwefen Lattimer et al., plaintiffs, and St. Michel, defendant, which was excluded because Hunt was in court in obedience to a subpoena, ready to be called as a witness. We assume that Hunt’s hand-writing was admitted or proved, for. no objection was made on the ground that he had not subscribed the deposition. The only point in this case was decided in Kritzer v. Smith, 21 *36 Mo. 296 . The paper was not offered as a deposition bnt as written admissions by the interpleader; and the statute which gives the right to examine the adverse party as a witness was not designed to exclude the ordinary means of proof, and it is competent to prove as admissions the oral or written statements of a party to the suit, though he might be called as a witness.

The other judges concurring, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1876–1877: 11882–1883: 21884–1885: 11888–1889: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 11908–1909: 11928–1929: 11938–1939: 118762026peak 1882 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Priest v. Way87 Mo. 16 (1885)
  2. Burdict v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.26 L.R.A. 384 (Mo. 1894) · Dissent
  3. Pomeroy v. Benton77 Mo. 64 (1882)
  4. Span v. Jackson-Walker Coal & Mining Co.16 S.W.2d 190 (Mo. 1929)
  5. Bogie v. Nolan96 Mo. 85 (1888)
  6. Dale ex rel. Dale v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.63 Mo. 455 (1876)

Most recent

  1. Martone v. Bryan130 S.W.2d 962 (Mo. Ct. App. 1939)
  2. Span v. Jackson-Walker Coal & Mining Co.16 S.W.2d 190 (Mo. 1929)
  3. Brookfield v. Drury College123 S.W. 86 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)
  4. Padley v. Catterlin64 Mo. App. 629 (1896)
  5. Burdict v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.26 L.R.A. 384 (Mo. 1894) · Dissent
  6. Bogie v. Nolan96 Mo. 85 (1888)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Kritzer v. Smith, 21 Mo. 296 (1855) 23

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