Eastabrooks v. Prentiss
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on note, tried at the. June term, 1860, Poland, J., presiding. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and two pleas in bar. The case was tried by jury. It appeared on the trial that the plaintiff the year previous to the date of said note, carried on the business of butchering, and the defendant was employed by him to peddle meat, and in the course of said business received considerable sums of money belonging to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
This was an action on note, tried at the. June term, 1860, Poland, J., presiding. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and two pleas in bar. The case was tried by jury. It appeared on the trial that the plaintiff the year previous to the date of said note, carried on the business of butchering, and the defendant was employed by him to peddle meat, and in the course of said business received considerable sums of money belonging to the plaintiff. The plaiutiff claimed and testified that on settlement between him and the defendant a balance was found due to the plaintiff, for which the…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
It stands confessed that, as the law was prior to the act of 1858, the wife would not be a competent witness in chief upon the main issue in this case. But it is claimed that under the third category of that act, in which her disqualification as a witness is removed, she was competent, and her deposition should have been received. The language is : “ In' all matters of business transactions, where the transaction was had and conducted by such married woman as the agent of her husband.”
If, by force of this provision, the wife was competent to testify, it was because what she did in the keeping…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bates v. SabinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Fish v. BloodworthSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Pingree v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
- Boyce v. BolsterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906