88 So. 239 | La. | 1921
The judgment of the Court of Appeal, on the only issue decided in this case, is based entirely upon the testimony of
The rulings in the cases cited do not maintain the right of an appellate court to consider as evidence in a case depositions that were taken under commission, but were not offered in evidence on the trial of the ease. The ruling in Poston v. Adams was merely thai. the answers to interrogatories propounded by one party to another party to the suit are admissible as evidence in favor of the party to whom the interrogatories were propounded, even though they might not be admissible in favor of the party who propounded them. The reason for the rule is that answers to interrogatories on facts and articles form part of the pleadings, and are binding upon the party who has propounded them. The decision in Berthole v. Mace is to the effect that a plaintiff who has propounded to the defendant interrogatories on facts and articles cannot object to the defendant’s introducing his answers in evidence in his favor, on the ground that they are self-serving declarations. The ruling in McKerall v. McMillan, and in Burckett v. Hopson, was that answers to interrogatories on facts and articles were not required to be formally offered in evidence on the trial of the case, because, under the law, they formed part of the pleadings. There is no such rule with regard to depositions, taken under commission, of witnesses who are not parties to the suit.
We do not express an opinion as to whether the judgment rendered by the civil district court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal should be sustained on the evidence that was introduced on the trial. The Court of Appeal did not decide that question.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is annulled, and it is ordered that this case be remanded to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings not inconsistent with the foregoing opinion.