2 D.C. 335
Decided October 15, 1822
<p>It is no valid objection to a deposition taken nnder the Act of Congress, that its envelope is not directed to “ the Court,” if it be directed to “ the judges ” of the Court.</p> <p>It is sufficient evidence that the deposition was “sealed up” by the magistrate, if the envelope is sealed, and the name of the magistrate written across the seal.</p> <p>It is not competent for the plaintiff to give parol evidence that the defendant saw and acknowledged the balance stated in the plaintiff’s ledger, without producing the ledger itself; a copy of the account is not competent evidence.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1825
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1822-10-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1overruled both objections. The deposition stated that the deponent showed the plaintiff’s ledger to the defendant, (the balance being $107,) who acknowledged it to be correct. It stated also that the paper annexed to the deposition, was a true copy of that account, and that the deponent afterwards showed the balance, being $107, to the defendant, who promised to pay it.
¶2The Court (Thruston, J., absent,) rejected that part of the deposition.