Smart v. Estate of Ford

Transaction with the deceased. The trial court correctly held the claimant Smart was incompetent to testify as to any transactions or communications between himself and the decedent Mrs. Ford as being prohibited under the so-called “dead man’s statute,” sec. 325.16, Stats. Clearly Smart is a party to the controversy, he has a financial interest in the outcome and seeks to prove his claim by his testimony which relates to a transaction or communication had by the witness personally with the deceased.

Agency of the husband. The claimant contends that Mr. Ford was agent of the deceased and that…