General Electric Co. v. Jonathan Clark & Sons Co.
Decision Date | 18 January 1901 |
Docket Number | 25,374. |
Citation | 108 F. 170 |
Parties | GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. JONATHAN CLARK & SONS CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Clark H. Timmerman, for plaintiff.
Adelbert Moot, for respondent.
This is an application under section 869, Rev. St. U.S. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant proposes to offer in evidence upon the trial of this case a portion of the record in an action now pending in the supreme court of the state of New York, in which the Ball & Wood Company is plaintiff and the Comstock Company, Jonathan Clark & Sons Company, and others are defendants. The plaintiff further claims that the answer to the amended complaint in that action served on the attorneys for the Ball & Wood Company may not be offered in evidence on the trial of this case by the defendant, because it contains admissions and declarations favorable to and corroborative of plaintiff's contention. Such admissions or declarations contained in a pleading served upon the adverse party in a pending case are material, and may be properly offered in evidence by the plaintiff in this case although not a party to the action in which the pleading is served. The fact that the pleading sought to be produced and offered in evidence by the plaintiff is a copy of the answer, does not take from it the character of an admission or declaration made by the defendant, which may become, under the circumstances claimed by the plaintiff, competent and material evidence. The question here is whether a communication made to a counselor in the course of his professional employment by persons other than the client or his agent is privileged. The privilege extends only to communications by or on behalf of the client. Randolph v. Quidnick Co. (C.C.) 23 F. 278. 'Crosby v. Berger, 11 Paige, 379, 42 Am.Dec 117. The motion by the plaintiff, General Electric Company that Adelbert Moot be directed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation
...479, 482; see Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed., § 2317; or a person with whom defendant has business relations, General Electric Co. v. Jonathan Clark & Sons Co., C.C.W.D.N.Y., 108 F. 170, In re Ruos, D.C.E.D.Pa., 159 F. 252; or a public document such as a patent, cf. Edison Electric L. Co. v. Uni......
-
Rogers v. Edward L. Burton & Co.
...17 L.R.A. 586; Marks v. Taylor, 23 Utah 152, 63 P. 897, 898; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 343, pp. 1113, 1114. 6 General Electric Co. v. Jonathan Clark & Sons Co., C.C.N.Y., 108 F. 170; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Allied Machinery Co., 2 Cir., 271 F. 900, 902; Hyman v. Wheeler, C.C.Colo., 29 F. 347, ......
- Meyer v. Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
-
Hofer v. Smith
... ... defendants were copartners, doing a general real estate and ... brokerage business in the city of ... introduction of evidence. Trickey v. Clark, 50 Or ... 516, 519, 93 P. 457; Crosby v. Portland ... material to the issue on trial. General Electric Co. v ... Jonathan Clark & Sons (C.C.) 108 F. 170; ... ...