Bank of Oldtown v. Houlton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit by the plaintiffs, in their corporate name, upon a promissory note dated Oct. 4, 1838. The general issue was pleaded, and a brief statement was filed, alleging that the charter of the bank had been annulled.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit by the plaintiffs, in their corporate name, upon a promissory note dated Oct. 4, 1838. The general issue was pleaded, and a brief statement was filed, alleging that the charter of the bank had been annulled. At the trial before T::nn::y J. the note was read, and the defendant introduced a resolve of the legislature of the State, passed March 20, 1839, providing for the repeal of the charter of the bank, and reserving to the bank the right of closing up their concerns. The defendant thereupon moved that a nonsuit should be directed. The presiding Judge declined to order a nonsuit.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of a majority of the Court, Sheplev J. dissenting qqd giving his reasons therefor, was drawn up by
Whitman C. J.
— The rule of the common law, as to the obligation of witnesses to testify in cases in which their interest may be involved, may be considered as embraced in the statute of the 4Qth Geo. 3d, which enacts, that a witness cannot legally refuse to answer any question, relative to the matter in issue, merely on the ground that the answer may establish, or tend to establish, that he was a debtor or otherwise subject to a civil suit. The witness, Sinclair, in this case, was not…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Appleton v. BoydMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Mauran v. LambNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- People v. IrvingNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by3 opinions
- Talcott v. Pine GroveU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan · 1872
- Lyman v. Norwich UniversitySupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Hunter v. MarlboroU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1846