Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
Stewart et al. versus Ross
2 U.S. 1572 Dall. 157·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1792·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Stewart et al. versus Ross.
A COMMISSION was issued, on the part of the defendant, and various interrogatories filed, designed to be put to different witnesses. The return of the commission was signed by all the commissioners, and it appeared that the plaintiff was present at the taking of the depositions; but, to certain of the interrogatories no answers were returned by some of the witnesses, and those which were answered by one witness, were not answered by others. The plaintiff objected to the reading the commission: But,
[MAJORITY — By the Court:]
By the Court:
—Had the execution of this commission been ex parte, it would not only have been informal, but substantially exceptionable. As it is returned, however, by the commissioners, on the part of the plaintiff, as well as by those on the part of the defendant, it is to be presumed, that the witnesses knew nothing about the subject matter of the interrogatories, to which no answer is returned. At any rate, it is a waiver of the right which the plaintiff had to the answer of the witness; and, on that ground, we hold the evidence admissible.