Case v. Lyman
Case v. Lyman
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The note sued on was given for a patent right for- refining sugar. It was payable to one Roberts, who was the agent of the “Clough Refining Company,” and by him indorsed to Lyman, the plaintiff below.
The evidence shows that the patent was worthless, and the only question in the case is, who was Lyman? He would sometimes reply to letters written to the company, and the compány would reply to letters written to him. •
From the correspondence admitted and refused, it might" reasonably be inferred that Lyman was either the company or its agent or superintendent. Unless this were true, why would letters addressed to him be replied to by the company, and its name signed to the replies ?
The reading of the letters from the company to the defendant was improperly denied. The rejection of them might enable these parties to consummate a fraud in the collection of the note. They at least tended to show the true position of the plaintiff.
A sufficient foundation was laid, for the admission of proof of the letters which had been lost. Diligent search had been made for them in everyplace where they probably would have been, and they could not be found. The questions in relation to their contents should have been answered.
The statement of the witness, that he could not tell particularly the contents, should not deprive him of the right to have his best recollection.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial. Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Oscar N. Case v. A. B. Lyman
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Evidence&emdash;to show that indorsee of a note was agent for real owner so as to admit defense. Where the consideration of a promissory note given for a patent right had failed, and the note was made payable to the agent of the company who sold the patent right, and was by him indorsed to the plaintiff, and it appeared that sometimes when the maker wrote to the company in respect to the matter, the plaintiff answered the same, and when he wrote to the plaintiff, sometimes the company answered the same: Held, that, in a suit upon the note, it was error to refuse to admit in evidence the letters written by the company, as they tended to show that the plaintiff' and the company were the same, or that he was merely the agent or superintendent, and acting in behalf of the company. 2. Same—proof of loss to admit seconda/ry evidence. In a case where the contents of lost letters were material and relevant to the issues, the party desiring such testimony, being the party to whom they were addressed, testified that when he received them he put them in a cupboard; that he had looked for them there, and made diligent search for them everywhere he thought they would likely be placed, and was unable to find them, and that they could not be found: Held, that a sufficient foundation was shown for the admission of proof of their contents. 3. In a case where a proper foundation is laid for the proof of the contents of a lost letter or writing, the fact that the witness can not tell particularly the contents, is no ground for the rejection of his testimony. He may, in such case, give his best recollection of the contents.