Doane v. Glenn
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- 20SC399 - Rojas v. People (Colo. 2022)
- Brooke E. Rojas v. The People of the State of Colorado (Colo. 2022)
- U.S. Industrial Products Corp. v. United States (United States Customs Court 1968)
- United States v. Bryson (United States Court of Military Appeals 1953)
- Best v. London Guarantee & Accident Co. (Mont. 1935)
- Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Tripp (10th Cir. 1933)
- Columbus Ry. Co. v. Patterson (6th Cir. 1906)
- State v. Webb (Colo. 1939)
- Breese v. Tampax Sales Corp. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1939)
- Black Diamond Coal Mining Co. v. Rankin (Tenn. 1936)
- Blakeslee v. United States (1st Cir. 1929)
- Smith v. Cincinnati Traction Co. (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1924)
- Groot v. Oregon Short Line R. (Utah 1908)
- Modox Co. v. Moxie Nerve Food Co. (1st Cir. 1907)
- Meyer v. Rothe (D.C. Cir. 1898)
- Electric Supply & Contracting Co. v. Consolidated Light & Railway Co. (W. Va. 1896)
- American Publishing Co. v. C. E. Mayne Co. (Utah 1893)
- Howard v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
- McClaskey v. Barr (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio 1891)
- Murray v. Larabie (Mont. 1888)
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
having stated the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
None of the objections to the reading of the deposition go to the testimony of the witness. All of them relate to defects and irregularities which might have been obviated by retaking the deposition. It does not appear that any notice beforehand was given to the counsel of the plaintiffs that they would be made. In such cases the objection must be noted when the deposition is taken, or be presented by a motion to suppress before the trial is begun. The party taking the deposition is entitled to have the question of its admissibility settled in advance. Good faith and due diligence are required on both sides. When such objections, under the circumstances of this ease, are withheld until the trial is in progress, they must be regarded as waived, and the deposition should be admitted in evidence. This is demanded by the interests of justice. It is necessary to prevent surprise and the sacrifice of substantial rights. It subjects the other party to no hardship. All that is exacted of him is proper frankness.
The settled rule of this court is in accordance with these views. *
The District Court erred in excluding the deposition, and *36 the Supreme Court of the Territory erred, ¡is regards this point, in affirming the judgment. ■
Judgment reversed, and the case remanded with direction to issue
A VENIRE DE NOVO.
The York Co. v. Central Railroad, 3 Wallace, 113; Shutte v. Thompson, 15 Id. 160; Buddicum v. Kirk, 3 Cranch, 293.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.