Administrator of Hopkinson v. Steel
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit in two counts, first a special promise of defendant to indemnify and save plaintiff’s intestate harmless from signing a certain note which plaintiff was compelled to pay. Secondly for money paid, laid out and expended. Plea, the general issue and trial by jury.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit in two counts, first a special promise of defendant to indemnify and save plaintiff’s intestate harmless from signing a certain note which plaintiff was compelled to pay. Secondly for money paid, laid out and expended. Plea, the general issue and trial by jury. On the trial in the county court, the plaintiff offered the deposition of one Jason Sherman, to which defendant objected, for the reason that the questions to the deponent, were leading ones. The court directed certain parts not to be read which are designated by some marks thereon and suffered others to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
— Was Sherman a competent witness to testify for the plaintiff as he did. The plaintiff was claiming to have been the surety of Steel, alone, or of Steel and Sherman, as joint principals, and Steel, alone, was sued. Sherman was interested to prove Steel, alone, the principal; but he was called to show he was a joint principal with Steel. This was testifying directly against his interest. Without this showing, the note, paid by the plaintiff, on its face, appeared to be the joint note of the three, and Steel would have been liable to…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Woodhouse v. Woodhouse Et Ux.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- Moran v. AbbeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Hefferlin v. KarlmanMontana Supreme Court · 1903
- Parsons v. HuffSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854
- People v. ClaryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.