Lacoste v. Chief Justice

Citations

• 28 Tex. 420

Syllabus

<p>In a suit bn an administrator’s bond against himself and his sureties, admissions made by the administrator, after the administration was closed, though evidence against him, are not evidence against the sureties.</p> <p>It was competent to prove such admissions as against the administrator himself by his deposition as a witness taken in another suit.</p> <p>The question of the competency of such evidence as against the sureties is assimilated in the opinion to similar questions arising on former agencies or partnerships, in which cases admissions of an agent or partner, made after the expiration of the agency or the dissolution of the partnership, notwithstanding they may relate to transactions anterior thereto, are not admissible against the principal or copartners. (See the opinion for authorities cited.)</p> <p>Whenever the declarations of one person are admitted as evidence against another, it is .upon the principle, implied by law from the relation of the parties to each other, or to the subject-matter, or to both, that the declarant is, with regard to the subject-matter of the declarations, the agent of the party sought to be affected by them; and when this relation has ceased, the reason of the rule no longer exists, and subsequent declarations are evidence only against the declarant himself.</p>