Orcutt v. Estate of Cook
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a claim for services of a minor son rendered to Coles R. Cook during his lifetime. The case was referred, and the referee reported that the first witness iutroduced by the plaintiff was Almira Orcutt, the wife of the plaintiff. She was objected to on the part of the defendant, on the ground that she was not such an agent of her husband as was contemplated by the act of 1858, and therefore could not be admitted as a witness.
Read the full summary
This was a claim for services of a minor son rendered to Coles R. Cook during his lifetime. The case was referred, and the referee reported that the first witness iutroduced by the plaintiff was Almira Orcutt, the wife of the plaintiff. She was objected to on the part of the defendant, on the ground that she was not such an agent of her husband as was contemplated by the act of 1858, and therefore could not be admitted as a witness. The plaintiff’s counsel contended that she was a competent witness, and could be admitted under the rulings of the courts. It was decided to admit her testimony…
1Opinion of the CourtAxdis, J.
The statute of 1858 enables married women to testify for and against their husbands in certain cases, viz : 1st, in actions on policies of insurance of property, so far as relates to the amount and value of the property injured; 2d, in actions against carriers, so far as relates to the loss of property and the amount and value thereof; 3d, in all matters of business transactions, where the transaction was had and conducted by such married woman as the agent of the husband.
The three classes of cases show the intent of the legislature to admit the testimony of the wife where from the nature of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Van Winkle v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1884