Cheery v. McCorkle
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Lee District Court. Cherry, as guardian of Samuel Anderson, claimed one hundred dollars, “ as a balance due on a note, which was given up by plaintiff to defendant, through mistake, upon agreement that if the mistake existed, it should be rectified.” On the trial in the district court, the plaintiff, Cherry, was offered, as a general witness, to prove the cause of action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Lee District Court. Cherry, as guardian of Samuel Anderson, claimed one hundred dollars, “ as a balance due on a note, which was given up by plaintiff to defendant, through mistake, upon agreement that if the mistake existed, it should be rectified.” On the trial in the district court, the plaintiff, Cherry, was offered, as a general witness, to prove the cause of action. Defendant objected, the objection was sustained, and judgment being rendered against plaintiff, he appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
"Wright, C. J.
The witness was incompetent. The rule excluding parties from being witnesses, applies to all cases where the party has any interest at stake in the suit, although it be only a liability to costs. Such is the case of a prochein ami, a guardian, an executor or administrator, and so also of trustees, and the officers of corporations, whether *523public or private, wlyerever they are liable in the first instance for the costs, though they may have a remedy for reimbursement out of the public or trust funds. 1 Greenleaf Ev., sects. 341, 401 and 402; Sears v. Dillingham, 12 Mass., 360 ;…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sears v. DillinghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
3Cited by1 opinion
- Schmid v. KreismerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871