First National Bank v. Wright
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Ralls Circuit Court. — How. David H. Eby, Judge. (1) Rosa L. Wright, the wife of the defendant, was not a competent witness under the statute. R. S. 1899, sec. 4656. At common law, the wife was not a competent witness for any purpose in an action by or against her husband.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ralls Circuit Court. — How. David H. Eby, Judge. (1) Rosa L. Wright, the wife of the defendant, was not a competent witness under the statute. R. S. 1899, sec. 4656. At common law, the wife was not a competent witness for any purpose in an action by or against her husband. The statute removed her disability only in certain specified cases, one being “in all matters of business transactions when the transaction was had and conducted by such married woman as the agent of her husband. Hearle v. Kreihn, 65 Mo. 205; Lynn v. Hoekaday, 162 Mo. 122; Wilden v. McAllister, 91 Mo. App. 451;…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts as above.) — 1. The evidence of defendant’s wife was admitted on the theory that she was his agent. The only evidence, if evidence at all, of agency is that she wrote her husband’s letters for him as dictated by him and kept his accounts and did his writing generally. At common law a married woman is disqualified to testify for her husband in a civil suit brought by or against him; but under clause 3, section 4656, B. S. 1899, she is not disqualified to testify for him in respect to £ £ any matter of business transactions, where the transaction was had. or conducted…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Taylor v. McClintockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Ulrich v. Security Investment Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1939
- Gottschall v. GeigerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921
- Fishback v. HarrisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Baird v. First National BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.