Legal Opinion

Jackson v. Barron

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 15, 1859Published

Assumpsit against the defendant, as surviving partner in the firm of Charles Gr. Parsons. The declaration was for goods sold and delivered, and the specification was for sundry goods alleged to have been sold on the 16th of June, 1854. It appeared that the demand was assigned to Luther Aiken, before the commencement of the suit, which was prosecuted for Ms benefit in the name of the plaintiffs, and the writ indorsed by a resident of this State.

Read the full summary

Assumpsit against the defendant, as surviving partner in the firm of Charles Gr. Parsons. The declaration was for goods sold and delivered, and the specification was for sundry goods alleged to have been sold on the 16th of June, 1854. It appeared that the demand was assigned to Luther Aiken, before the commencement of the suit, which was prosecuted for Ms benefit in the name of the plaintiffs, and the writ indorsed by a resident of this State. Joseph B. Norris, one of the plaintiffs on the record, was introduced to prove the sale of the goods. He was objected to on the ground that, being a…

1Opinion of the CourtPerley, C. J.

The general principle maybe considered as settled in this State, that the mere fact of being party .to the record will not disqualify a witness. If, on account of Ms connection with the suit, a party has an interest in the result, he is incompetent, like any other interested witness. Blake v. Ladd, 10 N. H. 190; Essex Bank v. Rix, *49710 N. H. 201; Bowman v. Noyes, 12 N. H. 302; George v. Sargent, 12 N. H. 313.

Norris, being plaintiff on the record, was directly liable to the defendant for costs, and was, therefore, clearly incompetent, on account of his interest. A judgment for the plaintiff would…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Norman v. WellsNew York Supreme Court · 1837
  2. Whiteside v. JacksonNew York Supreme Court · 1828
  3. Stanton v. WillsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1808
  4. Potter v. DeyoNew York Supreme Court · 1838
  5. Barnes v. CamackNew York Supreme Court · 1847

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API