Case Name: Richard W. Meade v. Richard R. Keane
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1826-12
Citations: 3 Cranch 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard W. Meade v. Richard R. Keane.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 3
Pages: 51–52

Head Matter:
Richard W. Meade v. Richard R. Keane.
If a witness for the plaintiff testifies that on a certain day he paid to the defendant a certain sum of money, and toot his receipt, the plaintiff is not hound to produce the receipt on the trial.
If a dedimus issue to take depositions in a cause in which Richard M. Méade is plaintiff, whereas the name of the plaintiff was Richard W. Meade, and the commissioners certify that they took the depositions to be read in a cause in which Richard W. Meade was plaintiff, the depositions are admissible, notwithstanding the clerical error in writing an M. for a W. in the commission.
In taking a deposition under a commission it is not necessary that it should he written by the commissioners, or by their clerk, or by the witness.
Assumpsit, for money had and received.
Mr. C. C. Lee, for the plaintiff,
offered to read a part of a deposition, in which the witness testified that he paid a certain sum of money on a certain day, and took his receipt.
Mr. Key, for the defendant,
objected, unless the plaintiff should produce the receipt.

Opinion:
But the Court, (Thruston, J., contrd,) overruled the objection.
Mr. Key, then objected to the deposition, because the commission, under which it was taken, purported to be issued in a cause in which Richard M. Meade (not Richard W. Meade, which was the name of the plaintiff,) was plaintiff; although the commissioners certified that they took the deposition to be read in a cause in which Richard W. Meade was plaintiff.
But the Court, (Thruston, J., contrd,) overruled this objection also; saying it was a mere clerical error; and that a commission i's not an ex parte proceeding, as is the case where a deposition is taken under the Act of Congress, and the parties are not bound to the same strictness.
Mr. Key also objected that the commissioners had not certified that the deposition was taken down by the commissioners or their clerk, or by the witness himself.
But the Court, (Thruston, J., contrd,) overruled this objection also.
Affirmed by the Supreme Court, 3 Peters, 1.