Converse v. Meyer
| Decision Date | 22 March 1883 |
| Parties | JOEL N. CONVERSE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. LOUIS MEYER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
This was an action brought in the district court for Lancaster county, by Meyer against Converse, Montcrief, and Houck, on an account for goods sold and delivered, the petition alleging that said defendants were partners doing business under the firm name of A. W. Houck & Co. On trial before POUND, J., and a jury, verdict and judgment in favor of Meyer against Converse and Houck and in favor of Montcrief. Converse brought the case up on a petition in error.
AFFIRMED.
Mason & Whedon, for plaintiff in error, cited: Southwark v Knight, 6 Wharton, 327.
Burr & Marshall and J. R. Webster, for defendant in error, cited Calhoun v. Hays, 8 Watts & S., 127. Stevenson v Anderson, 12 Neb. 83.
It is possible that the amount of the recovery was slightly in excess of the amount really due upon the account; but we are unable to say that the jury were clearly mistaken in this particular. So, too, upon the question of the liability of the plaintiff at all. We might possibly differ with the jury as to the weight of the evidence, but there is no such preponderance against their finding as would justify us in setting the verdict aside. It is not enough that we would have found differently upon the evidence; there must be no reasonable doubt of its insufficiency to support the verdict to warrant the granting of a new trial. The testimony was very conflicting and of such a character that the jury, acquainted most likely with the witnesses, were much better qualified to understand and weigh it correctly than we are.
It is complained that the court permitted portions of the deposition of A. W. Houck to be read in evidence, on behalf of the defendant in error, without reading the whole of it. There was no error in this. The rule contended for is applicable only to the reading of a deposition by the party on whose behalf it was taken. He who takes a deposition is not permitted to read portions only of it, if objected to. Such was the rule held in Southwark Insurance Co. v Knight, 6 Whart. 327. But where, as here, the adverse party has appeared and cross-examined the witness, he is entitled to the benefit of the deposition, and may read from it if he choose. Calhoun v. Hays, 8 Watts & Serg. 127. In this case it was held that: "If a deposition be taken by one party, it is competent for the other to read such parts of it as tend to prove his case, leaving to the other party the right to read the other parts if they be legal evidence for...
To continue reading
Request your trial