Spring v. Lovett
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit upon a promissory note made by the defendant, on April 28, 1828, payable to Thomas Buffum & Co., for $465‘83, with interest, on demand, and indorsed to tne plaintiff in January 1829. The cause was tried before the late chief justice Parker. To prove the time of the indorsement the defendant called Arnold, one of the house of Thomas Buffum & Co., who, though objected to, was admitted for that purpose.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note made by the defendant, on April 28, 1828, payable to Thomas Buffum & Co., for $465‘83, with interest, on demand, and indorsed to tne plaintiff in January 1829. The cause was tried before the late chief justice Parker. To prove the time of the indorsement the defendant called Arnold, one of the house of Thomas Buffum & Co., who, though objected to, was admitted for that purpose. It was then proved by the defendant, that he had purchased a water privilege, and that the members of a company, of which Buffum & Co. were one, had contracted to purchase it of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Shaw C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. The first question is, whether Arnold was a competent witness. It appears that he was one of the firm of Buffum & Co., the original payees and indorsers of the note, and was called as a witness *426by the defendant, and though objected to as incompetent, was admitted.
It was not contended that the witness was incompetent on the ground of interest, and we cannot perceive that he was-His interest, if he had any, was the other way, in favor of the recovery of the plaintiff. But it is supposed to be within the rule of policy adopted in support of the free…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Renner v. Bank of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Churchill v. SuterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Macarty v. FoucherSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1822