Smith v. Davidson

United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota

Decided December Term, 1889.)

United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · decided 1889-12

<p>Evidence — Admissions in Superseded Pleadings.</p> <p>Where an amended answer has been filed as a substitute for the original, the latter, though verified by defendant’s attorney, is inadmissible in evidence as an admission by defendant of the facts therein stated.</p>

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1942

1 district · 2 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Evidence — Admissions in Superseded Pleadings.

¶2Where an amended answer has been filed as a substitute for the original, the latter, though verified by defendant’s attorney, is inadmissible in evidence as an admission by defendant of the facts therein stated.

¶3At Law. On motion for new trial.

¶4Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for plaintiff.

¶5Lush & Bunn, for defendant.

¶6Nelson, J.

¶7I think the court erred in permitting the original answer, sworn to by one of the attorneys for the defendant, to be offered in evidence as an admission by the defendant of the .facts therein stated. An amended answer having been filed to take the place of the original, it should have been excluded from the jury. The ruling of the court having been properly excepted to, the defendant is entitled to a new trial for such error. New trial granted. Costs to abide the event of the suit.