Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Murders (2)
- Adultery (1)
- Affirmative evidence (1)
- Arkansas (1)
- Automobile accidents (1)
-
- Beneficiaries (1)
- Bitting v. Home Insurance Co. (1)
- Breaches of condition in policy (1)
- Chattel mortages (1)
- Clergy (1)
- Collinsworth v. City of Catlettsburg (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Connecticut (1)
- Contradictions (1)
- Criminal intent (1)
- Criminal records (1)
- Criminal tendencies (1)
- Deaths (1)
- Declarations against interest (1)
- Distortion by parole (1)
- Divorce (1)
- Fire policies (1)
- Gas (1)
- Guns (1)
- Illinois (1)
- In re Swenson (1)
- Incompetent testimonies (1)
- Kentucky (1)
- Kotler v. Lalley (1)
- Liability (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Insurance - Estoppel - Parol Evidence Rule
Insurance - Estoppel - Parol Evidence Rule
Michigan Law Review
The plaintiff sued on a fire policy. The insurer defended on the ground that plaintiff had violated a condition of the policy which provided that there would be no liability if loss occurred while the property was encumbered by a chattel mortgage, unless the company's written consent thereto was endorsed on the policy. Plaintiff sought to estop the defendant as to this defense because of insurer's agent's assurances, given before and after the issuance of the policy, that the policy would permit him to encumber the goods. Held, defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's replication should be sustained because of plaintiff's …
Evidence - Privileged Communication
Evidence - Privileged Communication
Michigan Law Review
In a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery, a Luthern clergyman refused to testify concerning a disclosure made to him in his religious capacity by the defendant husband, on the ground that it was a privileged communication under the Minnesota statute. The district court adjudged him in contempt of court. Upon certiorari to the supreme court of Minnesota, held, the communication was privileged, and the order was reversed. In re Swenson (Minn. 1931) 237 N.W. 589.
Appeal And Error- Crimes - Evidence Not Objected To At Trial
Appeal And Error- Crimes - Evidence Not Objected To At Trial
Michigan Law Review
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. At the trial, certain incompetent testimony was placed in evidence by the prosecution, to which the defendant's attorney failed to object. The point was sought to be raised on appeal under N. J. Comp. Stat. 1910 sec. 136, which provides that, in criminal cases, if "the plaintiff in error on the trial below suffered manifest wrong or injury, either in the admission or rejection of testimony, whether objection was made thereto or not * * * the appellate court shall remedy such wrong or injury * * * and order …
Administrative Tribunals--Judicial Notice
Administrative Tribunals--Judicial Notice
Michigan Law Review
The plaintiff corporation, a retail distributor of gas, contracted for its supply over a three-year period from a service company, and filed its rate schedule with the public utilities commission. The commission ordered a lower rate, its order being based on files of schedules of other distributing companies, which were found to show that the plaintiff's contract was excessive and that a lower rate could have been contracted for. These files were not introduced into evidence, but the commission took notice of them as a matter of public record. Plaintiff petitioned for an injunction against enforcement of the order. Held …
Evidence-Admission By Party Litigant-Substantive Proof Or Impeachment
Evidence-Admission By Party Litigant-Substantive Proof Or Impeachment
Michigan Law Review
ln an action against an employer for personal injuries, after the plaintiff had testified as to negligence of a fellow servant, his signed statement detailing a contrary account of the injury was introduced. The trial judge charged that the statement was admissible only for the purpose of contradicting the plaintiff's testimony. Held, it was admissible as a declaration against interest with probative value, as well as to impeach the plaintiff's testimony. Pub. Utilities Corp. v. Carden (Ark. 1930) 32 S.W.(2d) 1058.
Evidence-Other Crimes
Michigan Law Review
Judging from the number of opinions handed down in 1930 involving evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant, the modem criminal trial is not complete without some attempt to introduce evidence of this sort.
Evidence-Ballistics As Subject Matter Of Expert Testimony
Evidence-Ballistics As Subject Matter Of Expert Testimony
Michigan Law Review
W, among other things a professional expert witness and a ballistics expert, testified that the bullet found in the body of the deceased was fired from the gun identified as being that of the defendant. Held, the evidence was properly admitted. People v. Fisher et al. (Ill. 1930) 172 N.E. 743.
Insurance-Misrepresentations-Insertion Of False Answers By Medical Examiner
Insurance-Misrepresentations-Insertion Of False Answers By Medical Examiner
Michigan Law Review
If an applicant for life insurance, in answering the many questions put to him by the company's medical representative, tells the truth, but the examiner, in recording the answers, distorts them without the knowledge of the insured, may the beneficiary or the personal representative of the insured show this distortion by parol, and collect on the policy in spite of the presence of false written answers in the application? The New York court of appeals, in the very recent case, Minsker v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 254 N. Y. 333, 173 N.E. 4, answers this question in …
Evidence-Contributory Negligence-Burden Of Proof-Presumption Of Due Care
Evidence-Contributory Negligence-Burden Of Proof-Presumption Of Due Care
Michigan Law Review
This case was an administrator's action to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff's intestate who was struck by an automobile operated by the defendant. There were no eyewitnesses other than the decedent and the defendant. On trial the plaintiff introduced evidence of the defendant's negligence, but under the circumstances of the case, was unable to introduce affirmative evidence that the decedent was free from contributory negligence. Held, one judge dissenting, that there was no presumption that the decedent exercised due care, and therefore, the non-suit granted by the lower court was affirmed. Kotler v. Lalley (Conn. 1930) …