Clement v. Bixler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to Fayette county. This was an action of trover by Joseph Bixler against Wilson Clement. On the trial,'of the cause the plaintiff proved that he had assigned all his interest in the claim for which the suit was brought, produced the prothonotary’s receipt for all costs which had accrued, offered George D. Stevenson as security for all costs which might accrue, who was admitted to be sufficient security ; and then the counsel offered Joseph Bixler, the plaintiff, as a…
Read the full summary
ERROR to Fayette county. This was an action of trover by Joseph Bixler against Wilson Clement. On the trial,'of the cause the plaintiff proved that he had assigned all his interest in the claim for which the suit was brought, produced the prothonotary’s receipt for all costs which had accrued, offered George D. Stevenson as security for all costs which might accrue, who was admitted to be sufficient security ; and then the counsel offered Joseph Bixler, the plaintiff, as a witness, who was objected to by the defendant and admitted by the court, who sealed a bill of exceptions at the instance…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
When a plaintiff of record sells his title to make himself a witness, he takes the fruit of his testimony beforehand ; and though strictly free of legal disqualification, by payment and deposit of costs, he gains an advantage from his position in the cause which the defendant may not use the like means to counteract. It is certainly too- firmly established to be controverted, that such a plaintiff may so divest himself of interest as to be a witness for his assignee ; but the inequality of the principle in its application to the parties…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Steele v. Phoenix InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1811
- North v. TurnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
- Patton's administrators v. AshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821
- Richter v. SelinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
- Fetterman ex rel. Fetterman v. Plummer's AdministratorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. WoodburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859