Woodruff v. Daggett
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Oír Rule to show cause why the verdict rendered for the plaintiff should not be set aside. This was an action of assumpsit, on two several promissory notes, by the holder against the defendant as first endorser. The notes were drawn by John Lester, payable to Daggett, the defendant, by Daggett endorsed to Samuel A. Baker, and by Baker to Woodruff, the plaintiff. The first nóte was dated the 18th of January, 1838, for $405, and payable at ninety days.
Read the full summary
Oír Rule to show cause why the verdict rendered for the plaintiff should not be set aside. This was an action of assumpsit, on two several promissory notes, by the holder against the defendant as first endorser. The notes were drawn by John Lester, payable to Daggett, the defendant, by Daggett endorsed to Samuel A. Baker, and by Baker to Woodruff, the plaintiff. The first nóte was dated the 18th of January, 1838, for $405, and payable at ninety days. The second note was dated the 4th of April, 1838, for $343.60, and also payable at ninety days. The first note became due the 21st of April,…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The chief question in this cause is, whether Samuel A. Baker is a competent witness, and whether his testimony, taken under a commission, was properly read in evidence on the trial of the cause below. It is obvious that if interested, and therefore incompetent at the time of delivering his testimony before the commissioner, that testimony cannot afterwards, at the time of the trial, be legalized by the erasure of his name as endorser from the back of the notes. There has unquestionably been much controversy and much contrariety of decision in the courts, in relation to the competency of an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barretto v. SnowdenNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Baskins v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1826