In Evidence. A statement, made by a par tY to a transaction, or by one having an in terest in the existence of some fact in re lation to the same.
Such declarations are regarded as original evidence and admissible as such—first, when the fact that the declaration was made is the point in question ; Bartlet v. Delprat, 4 Mass. 702; Pelletreau v. Jackson, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 110 ; Phelps v. Foot, 1 Conn. 387; 2 B. & Ad. 845 ; 9 Bingh. 359; 1 Br. & B. 269; second, including expressions of bodily feeling, where the existence or nature of such feelings is the object of inquiry, as ex pressions of affection in actions for trim. con.; 1 B. & Ald. 90 ; Gilchrist v. Bale, 8 Watts (Pa.) 355, 34 Am. Dec. 469; see 2 C. & P. 22 ; Roosa v. Loan Co., 132 Mass. 439; representations by a sick person of the nat ture, symptoms, and effects of the malady under which he is laboring; 6 East 188; Gilchrist v. Bale, 8 Watts (Pa.) 355, 34 Am. Dec. 469; see 9 C. & P. 275; Bacon v. In habitants of Charlton, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 581; Wilkinson v. Moseley, 30 Ala. 562 ; Feagin v. Beasley, 23 Ga. 17; Wadlow v. Perryman's Adm'r, 27 Mo. 279; State v. Davidson, 30 Vt. 377, 73 Am. Dec. 312; Collins v. Waters, 54 Ill. 485; in prosecution for rape, the dec larations of the woman forced; 1 Russ. Cr. 565; 2 Stark. 241; Laughlin v. State, 18 Ohio 99, 51 Am. Dec. 444 ; third, in cases of pedigree, including the decilrations of de ceased persons nearly related to the parties in question; 2 C. & K. 701; 1 De G. & S. 40; Jewell v. Jewell, 1 How. (U. S.) 231, 11 L. Ed. 108 ; Jackson v. Browner, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 37; Chapman v. Chapman, 2 Conn. 347, 7 Am. Dec. 277; Waldron v. Tuttle, 4 N. H. 371; Dupoyster v. Gagani, 84 Ky. 403 ; 1 S. W. 652; 5 Ont. 638; 33 U. C. Q. B. 613; Eisenlord v. Clum, 126 N. Y. 552, 27 N. E. 1024, 12 L. R. A. 836 ; Gehr v. Fisher, 143 Pa. 311, 22 At]. 859; Harland v. Eastman, 107 Ill. 535 ; family records; 5 Cl. & F. 24 ; 7 Scott, N. R. 141; Douglass v. Sanderson, 2 Dall. (U. S.) 116, 1 L. Ed. 312; Watson v. Brewster, 1 Pa. 381; Jackson v. Cooley, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 128; fourth,, cases where the declaration may be considered as a part of the rag gestw; Tucker v. Peaslee, 36 N. H.
167; 13anfield v. Parker, id. 353; George v. Thomas, 16 Tex. 74 ; 67 Am. Dec. 612 ; Har dee v. Langford, 6 Fla. 13 ; 14 Cox, Cr. Cas. 341; Clayton v. Tucker, 20 Ga. 452; Deveney v. Baxter, 157 Mass. 9, 31 N. E. 690; Mobile & B. R. Co. v. Worthington, 95 Ala. 598, 10 South. 839 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Her rick, 49 Ohio St. 25, 29 N. E. 1052 ; Hermes v. R. Co., 80 Wis. 590, 50 N. W. 584, 27 Am. St. Rep. 69; Chick v. Sisson, 95 Mich. 412, 54 N. W. 895; Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 150, 13 Sup. Ct. 288, 37 L. Ed. 118; State v. Martin, 124 Mo. 527, 28 S. W. 12 (in which the cases are reviewed); including those made by persons in the possession of land; 5 B. & Ad. 223 ; 16 M. & W. 497; Inhabit ants of West Cambridge v. Inhabitants of Lexington, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 536; Weidman v.
Kohl., 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 174; Snelgrove v. Mar lin, 2 McCord (S. C.) 241; Crane v. Mar shall, 16 Me. 27, 33 Am. Dec. 631; Perkins v. Webster, 2 N. H. 287 ; Doe v. Campbell, 23 N. C. 482; Abney v. Kingsland & Co., 10 Ala. 355, 44 Am. Dec. 491; Stark v. Boswell, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 405, 41 Am. Dec. 752 ; Hay ward Rubber Co. v. Duncklee, 30 Vt. 29; Brush v. Blanchard, 19 Ill. 31; Sharp v. Maxwell, 30 Miss. 589; Cunningham v. Ful ler, 35 Neb. 58, 52 N. W. 836 ; and entries made in the ordinary course of business by those whose duty it was to make such en tries; as field-book entries by a deceased surveyor ; [1905] 2 Ch. 164; reversing [1904] 2 Ch. 525. The question on which the two courts differed was whether the case was within the principle of Price v. Torrington, 1 Salk. 285, 1 Smith, Leading Cases 139, which was recognized as the leading case for the admission of such entries made by a deceased person. But it must be shown that it was the duty of the deceased person to do the particular thing and to record con temporaneously the fact of having done it ; [1904] 2 Ch. 534; 2 Ont. App. 247; 8 id. 564. The limitation of duty thus adhered to in England and Canada, though suggested in earlier American cases; Nichols v. Gold smith, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 161; "did not with us survive" ; Wigm. Ev. § 1524.