|
13
<br />MUNI IP , RECORDS
<br />140; People Y. Adams, 9 Wend 333.
<br />Mutilation or alt ration as affecting
<br />admissibility of ordinances, 28 ALI2d
<br />1446, 1448.
<br />Parol evidence to establish transac-
<br />tions or acts in entire absence ofrecord,
<br />14.08.
<br />M i sfssippi. Hawkins v. West Point,
<br />200 Miss 816, 27 Sold 549.
<br />Parol evidence to prove recti d, §14.07.
<br />?]Kentucky. Monticello V. Wigan, 258
<br />Ky 223, 79 SW2d 720.
<br />Mississippi. Federal Land Bank V.
<br />Deflore County, 170 Miss 1, 153 So 882.
<br />8 New Hampshire. Cass v. Bellows,
<br />31 NH 591. -
<br />9 Rhode Island. Toupin v. Marceau,
<br />55 R1 2852 180 A 353 clerk's gratuitous
<br />conclusions in record).
<br />10 Renu y. Baker v. Felly, 228 Ky
<br />1, 10 SW2d 467 (minute book).
<br />Ma.ssaehu ett , Newbury#port v.
<br />'urlow, 324 Maas 49, 84 N2d 450 (city
<br />clerk's records).
<br />Virginia. Henrico County, Windsor
<br />Farnris v. Richmond,177 Va 764,15 Std
<br />309.
<br />"Kentucky. Monticello v. Regan,
<br />258 Ky 228, 79 SW2d 720.
<br />"labama. State v. Mobile, W Ala
<br />467, 28 Sold 177.
<br />Kentucky. Lewis v. Board of Educa-
<br />tion of Johnson County? (Ky), 348 SW2d
<br />921} Loouis,%Ue & Jefferson County Met.-
<br />ropolitan Sewer Dist. v. General Di till-
<br />ers Corp. of Kentucky icy), 257 SW2d
<br />643; Rockport Coal Co. v. Tilford, 222 K
<br />288,3W SM'898 (question whether fran-
<br />chise had been granted),
<br />§ 14,06
<br />West Virginia. Avis v. Allen, 83 W Va
<br />789, 99 SE 188.
<br />'3 Alabama. Penton v. Brown -Crum.
<br />mer
<br />ro n-Crum-
<br />er Inv. Co., 222 Ala 155,131 So 14, quet-
<br />Ing MCQUIllin text.
<br />Rentue y. Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
<br />ullitt County, 247 Ky 489, 57 SW2d 5.
<br />Missouri. State v. Heffernan, 243 Mo
<br />442, 148 SW 90.
<br />"' west Virginia, Shark Y. Ravens.
<br />wood,
<br />aven -
<br />wood, 43 W Va 242, 27 SE 223.
<br />15 Wisconsin. ' tally v. McGinn, 53
<br />wis 353, 10 NW 515.
<br />16 New York, Denning v. 1 oorne,
<br />Wend 851.
<br />17 Georgia. Metropolitan Street
<br />Co. v. Johnson, 90 Ga 500, 16 SL 49.
<br />" nU d Staff. Black v. Street I -n.
<br />provement Dist. No. 2 of Dardanelle,Ar-
<br />kansas, 37 F Swap 894.
<br />Arkansas. Adams v. Sims, 233 Ark
<br />896, 385 SW2d 13.
<br />Iowa. Sawyer v. Lorenzen & WeLize,
<br />149 Iowa X37, 127 N1 1091.
<br />Kentucky. Dudley v. Grayson, 6 TB
<br />Monroe 259.
<br />Mfimesota. Sanborn v. School Dist.,
<br />12 Minn 1 (sufficiency).
<br />New York, Brady* v. Brooklyn, I Barb
<br />NY 584 (nec s qty of corporate sed).
<br />Vermont. Hickock v. Shelburne, 41
<br />t 409.
<br />"Kentucky. Baker v. Kelly, 226 Ky
<br />1, 10 SW2d 467.
<br />s 0Georgia. Mullis v. State. 197 Ga
<br />650,30 SBd 99.
<br />14.06. Reports Of COnun-ittees arra officers,
<br />Duly authenticated reports of ^ rnmitt es and Officers may b
<br />introduced in evidence.' Where
<br />the report or recommendation of
<br />crnrr Atte of the council or legislative body is ratified in due forte
<br />it t once becomes ars act of the body, arid, therefore art ,
<br />record.' Admissibility into evidence has been denied, however,
<br />where a council committee's report was merely received not ado
<br />t
<br />d, and where a fire commissioner's report contained nothing more
<br />than hearsay.
<br />
|