Kellogg v. Wilcox, 32924
| Decision Date | 21 July 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 32924,32924 |
| Citation | 46 Wn.2d 558,286 P.2d 114 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert L. KELLOGG, Appellant, v. Bertine WILCOX, Respondent. |
James O. Ballou, Longview, for appellant.
Ferguson & Burdell, W. H. Ferguson, Donald McL. Davidson, Seattle, for respondent.
A petition for rehearing has been filed, calling attention to aubdivision (d)(2) of Rule 26, Rules of Pleading, Practice and Procedure, reading in part as follows:
'(2) The deposition of a party * * * may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.' (Italics ours.)
In our original opinion, in discussing appellant's sixth assignment of error, we referred to and quoted subdivision (d)(3) of Rule 26, on which the trial court relied in refusing to admit respondent's deposition. This deposition was offered on rebuttal.
However, even under subdivision (d)(2) of Rule 26, it is not mandatory for the trial court to admit a party's deposition in evidence whenever it is offered in evidence by his opponent. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit respondent's deposition, under the circumstances of this case.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammond v. Braden
...it admitted the deposition. In re Estate of Maher, 195 Wash. 126, 79 P.2d 984 (1938); Kellogg v. Wilcox, 46 Wash.2d 558, 283 P.2d 677, 286 P.2d 114 (1955). Defendant also assigns error to the failure of the trial court to give his requested instruction, which reads as follows: The duty of a......
-
Curtiss Nat. Bank of Miami Springs v. Street, 69-612
...proffer of the deposition. This ruling is in accord with Driscoll v. Morris, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 314. See also Kellogg v. Wilcox, 1955, 46 Wash.2d 558, 286 P.2d 114. Upon the record before us, we are not compelled to find that the trial judge abused his discretion when he refused to all......