Durkee v. Leland
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated May 2d. A. D. 1828, for $49,90 and interest. Plea, the general issue, with notice of payment in a waggon and sundry other articles, herein after mentioned.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated May 2d. A. D. 1828, for $49,90 and interest. Plea, the general issue, with notice of payment in a waggon and sundry other articles, herein after mentioned. The plaintiff having proved, and read in evidence, the note declared on^the defendant called John H. Kimball, Esq. attorney of the plaintiff, as a witness to prove, that the plaintiff held a bill of sale of a quantity of sap buckets, one or more cauldron kettles, and a sap holder, executed by the defendant to him on the 3d day of May, A. D. 1828 ; which property the plaintiff was to dispose of, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Williams, J.
The first question in the case is, whether Mr. Kimball, who is an attorney of the court, and was the attorney of the plaintiffin this case, on the trial in the county court, was properly compelled to testify in relation to the papers in his possession, and to produce the same. Attornies are not compelled, nor are they permitted, to give evidence of facts which come to their knowledge from the confidential communications of their clients in the course of their professional duty. There seems to be some discrepancy in the authorities, whether…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- AnonymousMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- State v. SquiresSupreme Court of Vermont · 1801
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. DouglassWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1882
- Wertheim v. Continental Ry. & Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1883
- Oliver v. CameronDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1880