Court Opinion

ID: 9807790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:15:43.671056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:49:06.782277
License: Public Domain

Clakk, J.
dissenting: Agreeing in the conclusion reached, I cannot concur with so much of the opinion as holds that such sufficient search had been made for the missing documents as would admit of parol evidence of their contents. The Judge, in this case, having set out the facts, his conclusion thereon was one of law, and subject to review. There were two depositories, in both of which the papers were sometimes kept, and, I think, it was error to admit parol proof of their contents, unless it had been shown that, after search in both the trunks, the papers could not be found.
Per Curiam. Error.