Case Name: UNDERWOOD'S ADMINISTRATOR v. HUDDLESTONE
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1813-06
Citations: 2 Cranch 76
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNDERWOOD’S ADMINISTRATOR v. HUDDLESTONE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 2
Pages: 76–76

Head Matter:
UNDERWOOD’S ADMINISTRATOR v. HUDDLESTONE.
The contents of a written notice cannot be given in evidence, unless notice has been given to the party to produce it.
Assumpsit against the indorser of Roddy’s note. The notary testified that he gave notice by letter.
Mr. Law, for the defendant,
objected to evidence of its contents, because the defendant had not been called upon to produce the letter, and cited Chitty, 210 ; 1 Peake, L.E. 112 ; 2 lb. 221; 7 East, 385; Shaw v. Markham, Peake, N. P. 165.
Mr. Jones, contra.
The practice has always been otherwise. Sanderson v. Judge, 2 H. Bl. 509.

Opinion:
The Court
(nem. con.) refused to permit evidence to be given of the contents of the letter, because the plaintiff had not given notice to the defendant to produce it before the trial, and refused to allow the plaintiff now to give the notice.
Verdict for the defendant.
New trial granted on payment of costs. (Bank Washington v. Kurtz, post.)