Shufelt v. Power
New York Supreme Court
The defendants, George H. Power and Hugh McClellan, who alone had answered the complaint, movéd, upon an affidavit stating, in the usual form, that Thomas H. Gantley, their co-defendant, is a material witness for the defence, and that he resides at Adrian, in the state óf Michigan, for a commission to take his testimony. ■ It appeared, from the affidavits read ■ upon the motion, that the action is brought to recover a balance alleged to be due from the defendants to one…
Read the full summary
The defendants, George H. Power and Hugh McClellan, who alone had answered the complaint, movéd, upon an affidavit stating, in the usual form, that Thomas H. Gantley, their co-defendant, is a material witness for the defence, and that he resides at Adrian, in the state óf Michigan, for a commission to take his testimony. ■ It appeared, from the affidavits read ■ upon the motion, that the action is brought to recover a balance alleged to be due from the defendants to one Shultz, upon the sale of a quantity of hay, and that the plaintiff sues as the assignee of the demand. The motion was…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
The defendants, Power and McClellan, allege that their co-defendant, Gantley, is a material witness *287for them upon the trial of this action, and ask for a commission to take his testimony. The plaintiff insists, that the action being founded upon a joint contract of all the defendants, Gantley cannot be a material witness for his co-defendants, and therefore the motion should not be granted. But I think it quite possible, that in such an action one defendant may be a competent as well as a material witness for his co-defendants. The 397th section of the Code authorizes a…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bigelow v. MalloryNew York Supreme Court · 1859