Summary

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne,  Burton v. Driggs — Opinion of the Court

“ But there are good reasons why this doctrine should not be extended to the case of lost deposition; as—
1st. The statutes authorizing the use of depositions in cases at law, are variant from common law, and imply the existence of a better kind of evidence, viz., the testimony of the witness in open court; and allow depositions only in peculiar cases, and to prevent a possible failure of justice. As far, therefore, as the statute goes we may follow, but no further. Depositions themselves are regarded as only secondary evidence.
”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne,  Burton v. Driggs — Opinion of the Court

“ The Federal courts have ever held parties to strict conformity to the statutes authorizing and prescribing the occasions, mode, and form of taking depositions. No statute of Congress-no decision-authorizes the use, as evidence, of a copy of a deposition, where the original is lost. The action of the court below must rest, for its justification, upon the common-law doctrine, that secondary evidence is admissible, when the primary cannot be had-as, parol evidence of the contents of a lost writing. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature