Neylans v. Herndon

Citations

• 79 Fla. 213
• 84 So. 89

Syllabus

<p>EVIDENCE — LOST PAPER — WHEN SECONDARY PAROL EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE CONTENTS OF.</p> <p>“The contents of a lost instrument cannot be proved unless it appears that reasonable search has been made in the place where the paper was last known to have been, and if not found there, that inquiry has been made of the person last known to have had its custody. The proponent must show that he has in good faith exhausted, in a reasonable degree, all sources of information and means of discovery which the nature of the case would naturally suggest, and that were accessible to him. If any suspicion hangs over a lost instrument, or that it is designedly withheld, a rigid inquiry should be made into the reasons of its non-production. But where there is no such suspicion, all that ought to be required is reasonable diligence to obtain the original. The loss of it must be made out to the satisfaction of the court. The law exacts nothing unreasonable in such a case. If parol proof of the loss establishes the fact with reasonable certainty, or as it is stated by some of the authorities, if the proof establishes a strong probability of its loss, then secondary evidence is admissible.”</p>