Sorenson v. Dundas
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Commonwealth v. Force (Pa. Super. Ct. 1910)
- Schillinger v. Town of Verona (Wis. 1894)
- Grisim v. Milwaukee City Railway Co. (Wis. 1893)
- Mack v. State (Wis. 1880)
- Mutcha v. Pierce (Wis. 1880)
- Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Howard (Ill. App. Ct. 1880)
- Torrey v. Nixon (Wis. 1877)
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
A meeting, material to the issue, took place between the parties. The court below permitted the respondent to testify in chief, in his own behalf, to an account of the meeting which he gave to strangers, after it had ended and the parties had finally separated. This was not part of the transaction, bnt a subsequent narrative of it. Declarations are verbal parts of the res gestee, only when they are contemporaneous. The respondent’s narrative, after the occurrence, belonged no more to the res gestee, than his evidence on the trial. It is too clearly inadmissible for discussion. 1 Greenl. Ev., § 110.
By the Oonj/rt. — The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below for a new trial.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.