Legal Opinion

Porter v. Cotney

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1842PublishedCited by 7 opinions

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa, for the recovery of a sum of money, due by promissory note. The cause was tried on the plea of non-assumpsit. On the trial, the plaintiff inquired of a witness, introduced by defendant, whether he believed in a future state of rewards and punishments, but the witness objected to answering the question, and his objection was sustained; and thereupon the plaintiff excepted.

Read the full summary

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa, for the recovery of a sum of money, due by promissory note. The cause was tried on the plea of non-assumpsit. On the trial, the plaintiff inquired of a witness, introduced by defendant, whether he believed in a future state of rewards and punishments, but the witness objected to answering the question, and his objection was sustained; and thereupon the plaintiff excepted. The jury returned a verdict as follows : “ We, the jury, find the issue in favor of the defendant;” on which the Court rendered its judgment, “…

1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.

In Blocker v. Burruss, 2 Ala. Rep. N. S., it was decided, that it is not essentia] to the competency of a witness, that he should believe in a future state of rewards and punishments; but it is enough if he believe in the existence of a God, who will punish falsehood, even in this life. This being the law, the question proposed to the witness, was one, however answered ,from which ho consequences would result to affect the rights of the parties; and the refusal of the Court to compel the witness to answer it, was entirely proper.

We do not understand that the jury intended to find a verdict in…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Marshall v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  2. Adamson's Administrator v. Norfolk & Portsmouth Traction Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1911
  3. Daniel v. Owens & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  4. Hardie v. AllenLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1951
  5. Beeson v. MooreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API