White v. Herrman

Citations

• 62 Ill. 73

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—secondary—best must be produced. Where the obligors in a written instrument obtained its possession, refused to deliver the same to the obligee, but gave a copy thereof and destroyed the original, and when sued denied the execution of the contract declared on in a plea verified by affidavit, it was held that the copy, when accepted as such, was, as between the parties, of equal authenticity with the original.</p> <p>2. And when it appeared that such copy was left with plaintiff’s attorney for suit, it was held error in the court to admit in evidence a copy of it made by plaintiff’s attorney, upon the testimony of plaintiff that it was a copy of the original as nearly as he could recollect. The copy given by defendants was the next best evidence to the original, and should have been produced or its non-production explained.</p> <p>3. Evidence—proof of value. In a suit to recover damages for a failure to convey title when only a small sum was paid, the preponderance of the testimony showed that the land was worth no more than was agreed to be paid, but the plaintiff showed, without objection, that other lots in an adjoining tract had sold much higher by the front foot. This proof did not disclose the terms of the sale, the number of lots sold, or whether the purchases were bona fide: Held, that such evidence was too vague and unsatisfactory to furnish a proper indication of the value of eighty acres sold in a body.</p>