Court Opinion

ID: 6537785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:13:08.596292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:42.855762
License: Public Domain

By the Court, Lacy, J. The counsel for the plaintiff objected to his bond as evidence, upon the sole ground that they had no notice of such intended off-set. The court sustained the objection because the statute required a notice to be given. This requisition is certainly a mere technical rule, which a party has a right to waive or insist on at pleasure. By the agreement of the respective counsel, and which is made a matter of record, all technical objections were to be waived by both sides. The objection insisted on at the trial, is nothing more than a mere technical objection, and should it prevail, the case could not be tried on its merits. This objection is a clear violation of their agreement, and they are estopped by their own admission from insisting that notice should have been first given them of the off-set; and the court, in excluding the note as evidence, manifestly erred. Judgment reversed.