FEDERAL COURTS - DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY PRACTICE - RULE 26 AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE

Authors

Jamille G. Jamra, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

In an action for personal injuries suffered in defendant's store, plaintiff moved for an order requiring one Jackson to answer certain questions propounded to him at the taking of his deposition. Jackson, an investigator for defendant's insurer, had ascertained certain facts from witnesses to the accident. The questions, to which Jackson objected on the ground of privilege, sought to elicit the number and names of persons who he learned were present at the accident. Held, the motion should be denied on the ground that the evidence sought was hearsay. Poppino v. Jones Store Co., (D. C. Mo. 1940) 1 F. R. D. 215.

Recommended Citation

Jamille G. Jamra, FEDERAL COURTS - DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY PRACTICE - RULE 26 AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE, 39 Mich. L. Rev. 322 (1940).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol39/iss2/16