Court Opinion

ID: 9538752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:41:11.336258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:08.164392
License: Public Domain

WADE, Justice
(dissenting).
Although I agree with the law announced in this case, I do not think it properly applied to facts here presented. I agree that generally the exclusion of evidence is not prejudicial where there is no disclosure of the substance of the proffered evidence., but this case seems to come within the exception to this rule stated in the prevailing opinion quoting from Buckstaff v. Russell & Co., 151 U. S. 626, 637, 14 S. Ct. 448, 452, 38 L. Ed. 292, wherein Mr. Justice Harlan for the court said:
“If the question is in proper form, and clearly admits of an answer relevant to the issues and favorable to the party on whose side the witness is called, it will be error to exclude it.”
I cannot agree that
“Palpably from the recital of the record * * * there is nothing to indicate * * * that his evidence would be either competent, relevant, material or favorable to appellant.”
It seems clear that, had the objection not been sustained, this witness would have testified to facts relevant to the issue of the delivery of this deed which would have been favorable to the defendant who called him thus bringing it squarely within the quotation from Justice Harlan. To *457me there appears no doubt that this witness would testify to facts which this witness as an attorney considered would show that a present delivery of the deed was made at the time it was executed.
Moreover, this evidence was not excluded on the ground that it would not be relevant, material or favorable to the party who called the witness, but on the ground that it was privileged. The court and all the attorneys assumed that the evidence would be relevant to the issues and would be favorable to the party who called the witness. Had the objection been sustained on the ground that there was a failure to show its materiality or that it would be favorable to the defendants, no doubt a showing of what was intended to be proved would have been made.
I also think there was sufficient evidence to show a joint account in accordance with the court’s finding.