Tatum v. Lofton
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee
On the trial of this cause the plaintiffs [Tatum’s executors] produced one Donnel-son for the purpose of proving their beginning comer. Donnelson objected to being sworn upon the ground that he was interested, having purchased a part of the land in controversy from one of the defendants.
Read the full summary
On the trial of this cause the plaintiffs [Tatum’s executors] produced one Donnel-son for the purpose of proving their beginning comer. Donnelson objected to being sworn upon the ground that he was interested, having purchased a part of the land in controversy from one of the defendants. It appeared that Donnelson was the locator and surveyor of the land claimed by the plaintiffs; and that long after these circumstances he purchased of the defendant Anderson, but before the commencement of this suit The question was, whether, under these circumstances, he could be compelled to give testimony.…
1Opinion of the Court
MeNAIRY, District Judge.
I am perfectly satisfied that the witness should be compelled to give testimony. There can be no reasonable doubt but that the rule, which is the foundation of that compulsion, is supported by the principles of justice. But independent of this consideration, a train of well-settled adjudications has put the question to rest. The books do not recognize any such distinction as is contended for by the gentleman who appears for the defendants. The witness is not coerced to give his testimony because he happens to have agreed to become a witness, but because, as there once…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mauran v. LambNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Roy v. SanfordTennessee Supreme Court · 1918
- Cooke v. McNeilMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892