Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1935-10-30
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1977
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶2
Plaintiff, Conlin and Baumgartner were joint adventurers and information sought by one from defendant Stivers, in behalf of the joint enterprise and so furnished by Stivers, was admissible,-' and the court was in error in excluding the two letters so written by Stivers to Conlin.
¶3
The court was also in error in excluding the letter of the joint adventurers to Mr. Stivers, after indorsement of the obligation and with actual, or chargeable knowledge of now asserted fraud, perpetrated by Mr. Stivers, and tendering, not a compromise, but a new and substitute arrangement.
¶4
Judgment should be reversed, with costs to de- ' fendant Stivers.
Potter, C. J., concurred with Wiest, J.
The late Justice Nelson Sharpe took no part in this decision.
