Case Name: Edward Broughton, Appellant, vs. Joseph Crosby, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1860
Citations: 9 Fla. 254
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward Broughton, Appellant, vs. Joseph Crosby, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
Edward Broughton, Appellant, vs. Joseph Crosby, Appellee.
1. It is not error in the Circuit Court to refuse to order a plaintiff to read on the trial depositions taken by him, though said depositions are on file and have been opened.
2. The defendant may read such depositions as testimony on his own behalf, if he desires it.
This case was decided at Marianna.
Appeal from Escambia Circuit Court.
. The appellee instituted an action of indebitatus assi nvpsit ..^gainst the appellant in the Court below.
Tlie defendant pleaded non assumpsit and payment. A trial was liad and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff for one thousand dollars, on which judgment was entered.
At the trial, the defendant moved the Court to order the plaintiff to read to the jury the depositions of witnesses taken by him, which motion was refused and the defendant excepted.
D. Jordan and McClellan cfc Barnes for appellant.
11. L. Campbell for appellee.

Opinion:
DuPONT, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The only error assigned in this case is that " the Court erred in not ordering the plaintiff below to read the depositions taken by him, on the trial." We think it very clear that the Court would have no more right to order a plaintiff to read on the trial depositions taken by him, though crossed by defendant and on file and opened by plaintiff, than it would have to order him to examine a witness whom he had brought into court by subpoena. The defendant would have the right to read such a deposition as testimony on his own behalf, or to examine such a witness as his own, but certainly he would have no right to compel the plaintiff: to read the one or to introduce and examine the other.
Counsel for appellee moves for damages as in case of a fidvolous appeal, but as it has not been made to " appear to ns that this appeal has been taken merely for delay," (Thompson's Dig., 449,) damages are refused.
Let the judgment of the. Court, below be affirmed with-costs.