Fernsler v. Carlin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia. On the trial of this action, (which was an action of slam der,) in the Court below, the defendant offered as a witness his son-in-law, William Nag-lee, who was objected to by the plaintiff, on the ground of his being “ interested in the “ event of the suit, or if not interested, yet that he supposed himself to be so.”
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia. On the trial of this action, (which was an action of slam der,) in the Court below, the defendant offered as a witness his son-in-law, William Nag-lee, who was objected to by the plaintiff, on the ground of his being “ interested in the “ event of the suit, or if not interested, yet that he supposed himself to be so.” In support of this objection, the plaintiff proved by the testimony of Samuel Na~ glee, that William Naglee, about two years before this suit, had said, “that he would give five dollars out of a his…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
(After stating the case.) Whether a person who in truth is not interested, but thinks himself to be so-, be a competent witness, is a point on which there has been a diversity of opinion. It is unnecessary to decide that question now, because the case before us, is not that of a man who thinks himself interested. Supposing, (and it is only a supposition,) that the competency of a witness should depend upon his own thoughts, respecting his interest, we must look to his thoughts at the time when he is offered as a witness. He might have thought himself interested some time before,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commercial Bank v. HughesNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- President of the Union Bank v. KnappMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1825
- Cotchet v. DixonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1827