Denison v. Hibbard
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit, charging the defendant as a common carrier. The defendant pleaded the General Issue. The issue was joined to the country, and on trial, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove, that the defendant was a common carrier from Danville, Vermont, to Littleton, in New-Hampshire; and that Josiah Grant was the servant, or agent of the defendant in that business; and as such servant, or agent, the plaintiff delivered said Grant seventy-seven…
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, charging the defendant as a common carrier. The defendant pleaded the General Issue. The issue was joined to the country, and on trial, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove, that the defendant was a common carrier from Danville, Vermont, to Littleton, in New-Hampshire; and that Josiah Grant was the servant, or agent of the defendant in that business; and as such servant, or agent, the plaintiff delivered said Grant seventy-seven dollars and thirty-four cents, to be safely carried from said Danville, and delivered to Reman How, at Waterford, Vermont,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was pronounced by
Baylies, J.
One of the best writers upon evidence, says, It is now clearly established, that no interest in any disputed question will render a witness incompetent, who is not interested in the particular result, or in the .record. There is, however, a considerable class of cases, where a witness is not, by reason of his connexion with the parties, or the subject matter of litigation, generally incompetent, but where he may be rendered incompetent by the nature of the particular question agitated at the trial. This happens where the event of the cause…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Allen v. CartySupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Abbott v. CampSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851