ADMISSIONS. Confessions or voluntary acknowledgments made by a party of the ex istence of certain facts.
As distinguished from confessions, the term is ap plied to civil transactions and to matters of fact in criminal cases where there is no criminal intent. As distinguished from consent, an admission may be said to be evidence furnished by the party's act of his consent at a previous period.
Direct, called also empress, admissions are those which are made in direct terms.
Implied admissions are those which re sult from some act or failure to act of the party.
Inc/Mental admissions are those made in some other connection, or involved in the admission of some other fact.
As to the parties by whom admissions must have been made to be considered as evidence:— They may be made by a party to the rec ord, or by one identified In interest with him ; 9 B. & C. 535; Morris' Lessee v. Van deren, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 65, 1 L. Ed. 38. Not, however, where the party of record is mere ly a nominal party and has no active inter est in the suit ; 1 Campb. 392 ; 3 B. & C. 421; Appleton v. Boyd, 7 Mass. 131; Head v. Shaver, 9 Ala. 791; Freer v. Evertson, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 142; Owings v. Low, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 134; nor by one of several devisees on a contest of a will for incapacity and undue influence ; O'Connor v. Madison, 98 Mich. 183, 57 N. W. 105.
They may be made by one of several hav ing a joint interest, so as to be binding upon all ; 8 B. & C. 36; Hunt v. Bridgham, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 581, 13 Am. Dec. 458; Beitz v. Fuller, 1 McCord (S. C.) 541, 10 Am. Dec. 693; Patterson v. Choate, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 441; Bound v. Lathrop, 4 Conn. 336, 10 Am. Dec. 147; Getchell v. Heald, 7 Greenl. (Me.) 26; Owings v.. Low, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 144; Van Reimsdyk v. Kane, 1 Gall. 635; Fed. Cas. No. 16,872. Mere community of interest, however, as in case of coexecutors ; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 176; Hammon v. Huntley, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 493; James v. Hackley, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 277; trustees; 3 Esp. 101; co-tenants; Dan v. Brown, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 483, 15 Am.' Dec. 395 ; Smith v. Vincent, 15 Conn. 1, 38 Am. Dec. 59 ; is not sufficient. Admissions of
one of several defendants against his inter ests will be receivable in evidence against him only ; Kiser v. Dannenberg, 88 Ga. 541, 15 S. E. 17.
The interest in all cases must have sub sisted at the time of making the admissions; 2 Stark. 41; Plant v. McEwen, 4 Conn. 544; Packer's Lessee v. Gonsalus, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 526. Admissions made by one subsequently appointed administratrix are not admissible against her when suing as such nor against her successor in office; Gooding v. Ins. Co., 46 Ill. App. 307; More v. Finch, 65 Hun 404, 20 N. Y. Supp. 164. An admission of debt by an executor does not bind the estate ; Orr's Appeal, 7 W. N. C. (Pa.) 126.
They may be made by any person inter ested in the subject-matter of the suit, though the suit be prosecuted in the name of another person as a cestui que trust; 1 Wils. 257; 1 Bingh. 45; but see 3 N. & P.
598 ; 6 M. & G. 261; or by an indemnifying creditor in an action against the sheriff ; 7 C. & P. 629.
They may be made by a third person, a stranger to the suit, where the issue is sub stantially upon the rights of such a person at a particular time; 1 Greenl. Ey. § 181; or one who has been expressly referred to for information ; 3 C. & P. 532 ; or where there is a privity as between ancestor and heir; 5 B. & Ad. 223; assignor and assignee ; Inhabitants of West Cambridge v. Inhab itants of Lexington, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 536; Lit tle v. Libby, 2 Green]. (Me.) 242, 11 Am. Dec. 68; Gibblehouse v. Strong, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 437 ; Snelgrove v. Martin, 2 McCord (S. C.) 241; Smith v. Martin, 17 Conn. 399 ; intestate and administrator ; 1 Taunt. 141; grantor and grantee of land ; Jackson v. Bard, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 230, 4 Am. Dec. 267 ; Norton v. Petti: bone, 7 Conn. 319, 18 Am. Dec. 116 ; Weid man v. Kohr, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 174 ; and oth ers. Letters written by a third person at de fendant's request about the matter in con troversy, are admissible; Holley v. Knapp, 45 Ill. App. 372. Statements by a third per son used by a party are evidence against him as admissions in a subsequent controversy; 4 Best & S. 641.