Distad v. Shanklin

Citations

• 15 S.D. 507
• 90 N.W. 151
• 1902 S.D. LEXIS 44

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action for the value of personal property which plaintiff was to receive from the owner of a store property for effecting an exchange of land of defendant for the store property, and which plaintiff had not received because defendant refused to complete the trade, the issue being whether plaintiff had acted as defendant’s agent, it was not error to refuse to permit plaintiff to testify that defendant instructed an agent of his by letter not to pay plaintiff anything, the nonproduction of the writing not being accounted for, and it being the best evidence.</p> <p>2. Any error in the ruling was harmless, plaintiff having testified that defendant refused to pay him anything.</p> <p>3. Evidence as to the value of the land was properly excluded as immaterial.</p> <p>4. It was proper to exclude evidence that it is the custom of land agents to get the best possible terms from the owner, and then get all possible from the other party.</p> <p>5. Where prior to the second trial of a case, the plaintiff had died, and it was stipulated that the testimony of plaintiff and defendant might be read in evidence, the stipulation did not prevent the defendant from testifying.</p> <p>6. Where there is offered in evidence a writing purporting to be a copy of a telegram from plaintiff to defendant, and it is shown that the copy had been put in evidence without objection at a former trial, and that a letter to plaintiff acknowledged a telegram reading the same as the copy, it was proper to admit the copy.</p>