Jones v. Purnell
Superior Court of Delaware
Issue from the Court of Chancery The issues sent to the Superior Court by the Chancellor in the above case, are stated in the charge of the Court. At the trial, the defendant, in reply to a question asked him by his counsel, was proceeding to state certain conversations and transactions he had with Isaac N. Fooks in his lifetime relative to the alleged partnership.
Read the full summary
Issue from the Court of Chancery The issues sent to the Superior Court by the Chancellor in the above case, are stated in the charge of the Court. At the trial, the defendant, in reply to a question asked him by his counsel, was proceeding to state certain conversations and transactions he had with Isaac N. Fooks in his lifetime relative to the alleged partnership. This was objected to by counsel for plaintiffs, on the ground that under the statute (Revised Code, 1898, p. 798) the defendant could not testify to any conversations or transactions with Fooks, he being now deceased and being a…
1Opinion of the Court
Lore, C. J.:
Under the statute, this defendant is not permitted to testify to any conversations or transactions with Mr. Fooks.
Lore, C. J.,
charging the jury:
Gentlemen of the jury:—The questions you are empaneled to try differ somewhat from ordinary suits that are brought before juries where the parties originally come into this court and submit their differences to your adjudication, in this, that it is one where in a case before the Chancellor between the parties,'the testimony as to certain questions of fact was so conflicting that he desires to have the information and the benefit of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Garber v. WhittakerSuperior Court of Delaware · 1934
- Chaiken v. Employment Security CommissionSuperior Court of Delaware · 1971
- Schagrin v. SchagrinSuperior Court of Delaware · 1914
- Cahall v. NasrSuperior Court of Delaware · 2020