Goldstone v. Davidson
GOLDSTONE v. DAVIDSON
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cope (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Cope
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. concurring.
The Court erred in excluding the evidence offered by Meyer Davidson to prove his discharge in insolvency. This evidence consisted of a certified copy of the decree, and of each of the papers composing the record of the proceedings. It was excluded upon the ground that these separate papers should have been attached together, and the whole certified as one record. This would undoubtedly have been the proper mode of exemplification; but we think the mere fact that the papers composing the record were certified separately was not sufficient to authorize their rejection. These papers, taken together, make up a complete record, and establish all the facts necessary to entitle the party to the benefit of his defense.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.