Williams v. Little
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, signed by the defendant, December 5, 1834, for 02500, in six months, payable to the plaintiff, or order, at the Phcenix Bank, Hartford, Connecticut.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, signed by the defendant, December 5, 1834, for 02500, in six months, payable to the plaintiff, or order, at the Phcenix Bank, Hartford, Connecticut. The defence was, that one Woodward and the defendant were about to engage in the lumber business, and that a meeting was appointed to agree on the terms and close the contract — that Adams Moore as agent of the defendant, and the plaintiff as agent and friend of Woodward, who was absent, met and agreed upon the terms, one of which was, that Woodward should furnish the defendant 05000, to make purchases of…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
It is said that the interest which excludes a witness must be a present, certain, vested interest; and riot uncertain, or contingent. 2 Stark. Ev. 745. But the instances given of a contingent interest, within the meaning of this rule, are cases where it was uncertain whether the witness would ever have any interest, or derive any benefit. The interest is not contingent where the necessary legal consequence of a verdict will be to better the situation of a witness, by either securing an advantage, or repelling a loss. Ditto*746. So a witness is interested, and inadmissible, if the record would be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States Bank v. StearnsNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Elliot v. SleeperSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1823
- New-Hampshire Bank v. WillardSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bailey v. ShawSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851
- Morse v. GreenSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842