Whitaker v. Brown
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Error from Yates common pleas. The action in the court below was on a promissory note, payable to one W. Roy or bearer, transferred to the plaintiff. The making and transfer of the note were duly proved. The defendant offered to prove admissions made by Roy whilst the holder of the note, and previous to the transfer, shewing that the defendant was not liable to the payment of the note.
Read the full summary
Error from Yates common pleas. The action in the court below was on a promissory note, payable to one W. Roy or bearer, transferred to the plaintiff. The making and transfer of the note were duly proved. The defendant offered to prove admissions made by Roy whilst the holder of the note, and previous to the transfer, shewing that the defendant was not liable to the payment of the note. These admissions were offered to be shewn, not by Roy, but by witnesses to whom he had made such admissions. The common pleas refused to receive the evidence. The plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant sued…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sutherland, J.
Evidence of the declarations and admissions of William Roy, made when he was the holder and owner of the note on which this suit was brought, was properly excluded. Roy was a competent witness. The genuineness of the note had been proved. His declarations were not the best evidence. The opposite party was entitled to his oath.
In Hurd v. West, 7 Cowen, 752, it was held that the declarations of a vendor of personal property, though made before sale, are not evidence against the vendee; but the vendor should be called as a witness. So also, in Alexander v. Mahon, 11…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Fort v. BurchNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Caldwell v. WilliamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1849
- Clinton v. EstesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1859
- Sprague v. KneelandNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Bort v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1848
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.