The question, whether the deposition of a witness, taken in a former proceeding between the same parties, is admissible in evidence, frequently engages the attention of courts and counsel. The rule is, that a deposition taken in a former suit between the same parties, involving the same question, or subject-matter, are admissible when the question again arises for judicial determination. And it is not absolutely essential that the parties be identical, or that there be complete mutuality in respect to their relation to each other, or to the subject-matter. It is sufficient, if the same matter were in issue in both cases, and those against whom the deposition is offered, or those under whom they claim the estate or right in question, have the opportunity of cross-examining the witness and of testing the truth of his testimony.19

And where a deposition has been properly taken in an action, unless something has since transpired to render such deposition inadmissible, it may be received during all the subsequent proceedings or stages of such action, upon new trial thereof, upon appeal, or after amendment of pleadings.

19 Wade vs. King, 19 111., 300; McConnell vs. Smith, 27 I11., 234. Holman vs. Norfolk Bank,

12 Ala., 359; Woolenslagle vs. Runals, 76 Mich., 545.

If the party against whom the deposition is offered was not a party, nor in privity with a party, to the former suit or proceeding, the deposition is admissible only in so far as to establish the pendency of the suit in which such deposition was used.

In order for a deposition to be admissible, it should appear: (1) That the parties are the same, or in privity; (2) the question to be judicially determined is the same; (3) that the evidence in the one case would tend to support the issues in the other.