noting that "a party's testimony of facts subversive to his interests is alone sufficient to support a verdict"
How later courts described this case
- noting that "a party's testimony of facts subversive to his interests is alone sufficient to support a verdict"
- noting "a party's testimony of facts subversive to his interests is alone sufficient to support a verdict"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Herbert, J.,
concurring. I concur in the judgment because appellee’s own statements establish his violation of the law. It is not necessary to a resolution of this cause to decide the question concerning expert testimony.