TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. Coleman

Joseph Smith & Son v. Geo. Coleman

Smith v. Coleman, 22 F. Cas. 488 (1821)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
April 15, 1821
Citations
22 F. Cas. 4882 D.C. 2372 Cranch 237
Headnotes
If the name of one of the defendants be omitted in the caption of a deposition, it cannot be read in evidence in the cause. It is not necessary that the magistrate who takes a deposition under the Act of Congress, should certify that the opposite party had no attorney within one hundred miles of the place of caption, in order to excuse the want of notice. If the defendant call upon the plaintiff to produce a certain account at the trial, and, when produced,refuses toread it,in evidence, the plaintiff cannot.read it to the jury, in evidence, because called for by the defendant.
Summary
This was a cause transmitted from Alexandria county, for trial in this county. objected to the deposition of Charles H. Hall, because it does not appear to be taken in this cause, — the name of James Anderson; one of the defendants, having been omitted in the caption. On an indictment for perjury, it might be averred that the deposition was made in this cause, notwithstanding the omission of the name. So, in special pleading, it might be averred to be taken in this suit, and proved by parol.

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.

The Court (nem. con.) rejected the deposition, because it did not appear to be taken in a cause in which James Anderson is a defendant.

Mr. Key also objected to the deposition of David Seldon, because the judge had not certified that the defendant had no attorney within one hundred miles of the place of caption. He had certified that no notice was given to the adverse par ties, because they were not within one hundred miles, but said nothing of their attorney.

The Court (nem. con.) overruled the objection, because the judge was not required, by the Act of Congress, to give any reason for not giving notice; and, if he had, his certificate would not be conclusive evidence of the fact that neither the party, nor his attorney was within one hundred miles of the place of caption. The defendants, not having had notice, may object, on that ground, and the plaintiffs may show, in fact, that neither the defendants nor their attorney were within the one hundred miles, &e.

The defendants having given notice to the plaintiffs to produce a certain account at the trial, and the plaintiffs having produced it accordingly, the defendants declined to use it; whereupon the plaintiffs offered to read it, in evidence, to the jury. To this the defendants objected, and

The Court (nem. con.) sustained the objection, and refused to permit the plaintiff to read it to the jury. The plaintiffs became nonsuit, but the Court permitted the cause to be reinstated, upon payment of the costs of the term.

The cause, at a subsequent term, was, by consent, returned to the Alexandria docket.

How later courts describe this case

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

1838–1839: 118382026peak 1838 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Griffin v. Jeffers5 D.C. 444 (1838)

Most recent

  1. Griffin v. Jeffers5 D.C. 444 (1838)

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