Eder v. Reilly
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1894, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Douglas v. Leighton (Minn. 1894)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is apparent that on the trial the defendant was permitted to state from the bills rendered'to him by his bricklayers the number of brick that went into the sewer. The bills were not verified as correctly setting forth the number of brick, either by him or by the persons who made them. They were not evidence, nor could they be referred to by the witness to refresh or recall his recollection, of the number of brick put into the sewer; for although, to justify a witness refreshing his recollection from a writing, it may not be necessary that he should have made it, nor that he should be able himself to state that it was correctly made, its correctness must be in some way verified. The dangers in allowing witnesses to refer to writings not verified are obvious. The bill of the brick association stands on the same footing with those of the bricklayers.
Order reversed.
(Opinion published 51 N. W. Rep. 226.)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.