Citation network
Putnam Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 04, 1896
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Putnam v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 162 U.S. 687 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Putnam v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 162 U.S. 687 (1896) Putnam v. UnitedSearch
-
the brief of counsel. We Page 162 U. S. 691 notice only the two cases principally relied on, to-wit, McGary v. PeopleSearch
-
N.Y. 153, and Sykes v. PeopleSearch
-
Ill. 32. Both of these cases are in conflict with Commonwealth v. JacobsSearch
-
the trial court in the case at bar. However, the case now before us is distinguishable from that presented in McGary v. PeopleSearch
-
and Sykes v. PeopleSearch
-
commonly understood as referring only to the place of business of the corporation. A case precisely in point is Roger v. StateSearch
-
to be asked, when the counsel conducting the examination is surprised by the statements of the witness. St. Clair v. UnitedSearch
-
in order to remove any weakening of memory on his part which may have supervened from lapse of time. In Maxwell v. WilkinsonSearch
-
made in the regular course of business, unless contemporaneous with the transaction to which they relate. Nicholls v. WebbSearch
-
Insurance Co. v. WeideSearch
-
Chaffee v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
have been fresh in his memory. The memorandum must have been 'presently committed to writing,' Lord Holt, in Sandwell v. SandwellSearch
-
while the occurrences mentioned in it were recent, and fresh in his recollection,' Lord Ellenborough, in Burrough v. MartinSearch
-
Camp. 112, 'written contemporaneously with the transaction,' Chief Justice Tindal, in Steinkeller v. NewtonSearch
-
or nearly so with the facts deposed to,' Chief Justice Wilde, afterwards Lord Chancellor Truro, in Whitfield v. AlandSearch
-
Car. & K. 1015. See also Burton v. PlummerSearch
-
Wood Page 162 U. S. 696 v. CooperSearch
-
Morrison v. ChapinSearch
-
Spring Garden Ins. Co. v. EvansSearch
-
courts have differed somewhat, depending, of course, upon the facts of each particular case. In Wood v. CooperSearch
-
of the time of the happening of certain occurrences, and when the facts were fresh in his memory. So, in State v. ColwellSearch
-
had elapsed from the time when the occurrences transpired concerning which the witness gave testimony. In Billingslea v. StateSearch
-
to a grand jury within a week after the occurrence about which he was being interrogated. In Spring Garden Ins. Co. v. EvansSearch
-
as we shall hereafter demonstrate, originally arose from a misconception of the doctrine laid down in Wright v. BeckettSearch
-
or Melhuish v. CollierSearch
-
that they rest not upon sound reason, but solely upon the supposed exception to which we have adverted. In Wright v. BeckettSearch
-
also call other witnesses to establish the fact of the making of such prior inconsistent statements. In Melhuish v. CollierSearch
-
The judges, moreover, intimated a doubt as to the correctness of Lord Denman's opinion in Wright v. BeckettSearch
-
by the testimony of his own witness, to call other witnesses to prove his contradictory statement, but followed Wright v. BeckettSearch
-
used in Melhuish v. CollierSearch
-
was intended rather as a qualification on the right to neutralize in case of surprise, which was recognized in Wright v. BeckettSearch
-
is found in the fact that the judge before whom that case was first tried subsequently, in 1853, in the case of Regina v. WilliamsSearch
-
but when the witness answered that question, the counsel could not proceed any further. A few years after Melhuish v. CollierSearch
-
memoranda. This statute was substantially a legislative recognition of the correctness of the rule laid down in Wright v. BeckettSearch
-
witness himself concerning prior inconsistent statements, as well as the proof thereof by other witnesses. Faulkner v. BrineSearch
-
Dear v. KnightSearch
-
The case of Campbell v. StateSearch
-
avowed object of the question being to refresh the witness' memory. The ruling was rested on the authority of Wright v. BeckettSearch
-
supra, and on the opinions of Greenleaf and Phillipps. But the learned court overlooked the fact that Wright v. BeckettSearch
-
and different faculty of refreshing the memory of the witness by contemporaneous writings or memoranda. Hemmingway v. GarthSearch
-
Ala. 530, was placed simply upon the authority of the previous case. In Bullard v. PearsallSearch
-
The principal cases in this state in which the subject is referred to are People v. SaffordSearch
-
Thompson v. BlanchardSearch
-
Sanchez v. PeopleSearch
-
N.Y. 147, and in England it is very thoroughly discussed in Melhuish Page 162 U. S. 704 v. CollierSearch
-
The fact that Melhuish v. CollierSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial