Cited by

Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; Hall v. Northwestern Endowment & Legacy Assn. 47 Minn. 85 , ; Spafford v. Hahn, 274 Minn. 180, 186 , 143 N. W. (2d) 81, 85 .

As this court stated in Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28, 31 , , 57: 6 *187 “* * * The language of the act, ‘any conversation with, or admission of,’ refers, strictly, only to spoken words.

the decedent.” See, also, Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , .

13 In Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28, 31 , , we said: * * The language of the act, Any conversation with, or admission of,’ refers, strictly, only to spoken words.

Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28, 31 , , gives a full statutory history of the rule here under consideration.

The assumption that the statute should be strictly construed originated Avith Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , .

The rule of strict construction against the exclusion of otherwise competent testimony is illustrated in Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; In re Brown’s Will, 38 Minn. 112 , ; Keigher v. City of St.

In Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28, 31 , , the plaintiff sought to testify to acts, not words, of a deceased person, in making payment upon a promissory note.

Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; Parker v. Maxwell, 51 Minn. 523 , ; Robbins v. Legg, 80 Minn. 419 , ; Merhoff v. Merhoff, 84 Minn. 263 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .

Paul, 73 Minn. 21 , ; Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , .

Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; In re Brown, 38 Minn. 112 , ; Finn v. Modern Brotherhood of America, 118 Minn. 307 , ; Ikenberry v. New York Life Ins.

The uniform holding ever since Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , , has been that the provision is in the nature of an exception to the general rule of receiving all available testimony and should he construed strictly.

Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 55, 62 , ; Hall v. Northwestern E. & L. Assn. 47 Minn. 85 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .

The statute does not forbid testimony as to the acts of a deceased person (Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28, 29 , ), but does forbid a witness who is incompetent under the statute from stating.conclusions which he drew from the conversation.

Its terms are broad, and contained nothing to restrict their application, and in view of the evolution of the subject evidenced by the growth of the statute from preceding enactments (Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ) the intention was manifest to make no distinction in favor of the estates of deceased parties.

Merhoff v. Merhoff, 84 Minn. 263 , ; Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; Hall v. Northwestern Endowment Assn., 47 Minn. 85 , .

Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; Young v. Perkins, 29 Minn. 173 , ; Willoughby v. Irish, 35 Minn. 63 , ; Erpelding v. Ludwig, 39 Minn. 518 , ; Cousins v. St.

In an earlier case (Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ) it was held that this section applies to all actions, and excludes the testimony of either of the parties as to any conversation with, or admission of, a deceased party or person, relative to any matter in issue.

Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; Hall v. N. W. Endowment & L. Assn., 47 Minn. 85 , .

This statute has been strictly construed by this court (Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ), and the comptroller was not a party to the action nor interested in the result thereof.

S. 1894, § 5660) provides that: “It shall not be competent for any party to an action, or interested in the event thereof, to give evidence therein of or concerning any conversation with, or admission of, a deceased or insane party or person, relative to any matter at issue between the parties.” In the case of Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , , and subsequent cases, it is held that this statute only excludes the testimony of a party, or of one interested in the event of the action, as to oral

It was held in Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , , followed in subsequent decisions, that the language of the act refers only to spoken words.

187 ;) Young v. Perkins, 29 Minn. 173 , ( ;) Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , (1 N. W 55.)

Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ( 1 N. W. Rep.

Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ( 1 N. W. Rep.