Nolley v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Alabama
THE plaintiff in error declared against the defendant in the Circuit Court of Baldwin, for goods, wares and merchandize, sold and delivered. On the trial, the plaintiff proved that he was a merchant, and that b|e had no clerk, but sold goods himself. He then produced his daybook and ledger, kept by himself, in which the defendant appeared to be charged with merchandize sold by the plaintiff, to the amount of one hundred and sixty-nine dollars.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff in error declared against the defendant in the Circuit Court of Baldwin, for goods, wares and merchandize, sold and delivered. On the trial, the plaintiff proved that he was a merchant, and that b|e had no clerk, but sold goods himself. He then produced his daybook and ledger, kept by himself, in which the defendant appeared to be charged with merchandize sold by the plaintiff, to the amount of one hundred and sixty-nine dollars. It was proved that the charges were reasonable and proper; and persons who had dealt with the plaintiff testified, that he kept correct books, and his…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
In Moore v. Andrews & Brothers, 5 Porter’s Rep. 107, it was held, that the admissibility of books of account as evidence, was not provided for in this State by statute, and consequently depended upon the common law. This being the case, it may be safely affirmed, that entries made by a tradesman himself, stating the delivery of goods, are not evidence in his favor. 1 Phil. Ev. 266; 2 ibid. C. & H.’s notes, 691. The law cannot be admitted to be otherwise, without disregarding a very salutary maxim, nemo debet esse testis in propria causa; and this too, when the departure from a general rule,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Pearson v. DarringtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Bolling v. FanninSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Conklin v. StamlerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1859
- Halliday v. ButtSupreme Court of Alabama · 1866
- Dunn v. DunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845