Bean v. Pearsall
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin. Assumpsit by the defendant in error. Upon the trial, the' plaintiff introduced the deposition of John T. Abernathy, by which he proved, that he paid a sum of money ove].' to the-defendant, for the plaintiff, and on his account, wly&h money was in the hands of Kirkman, Abernathy & Hanna, belonging to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Franklin. Assumpsit by the defendant in error. Upon the trial, the' plaintiff introduced the deposition of John T. Abernathy, by which he proved, that he paid a sum of money ove].' to the-defendant, for the plaintiff, and on his account, wly&h money was in the hands of Kirkman, Abernathy & Hanna, belonging to the plaintiff. In answer to the question, whether he was not interested in the event of the suit, he saysr I am not, unless the fact of my being partner in the house of Kirk-man, Abernathy & Hanna, might make me so, if they are liable to Pearsall, in the…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
A witness cannot be permitted to testify, when the record of the suit, in which he is offered, would be evidence either for, or against him, and in this case it is clear, that if a suit should be hereafter brought against Abernathy, or the firm of which he is a member, by Pearsall, the judgment in this case would not bo evidence. But although this question, when it can be answered in the affirmative, affords a perfect test of the incompetency of the witness, it does not follow that he is competent in all cases, where' the record would not be evidence, for or against him. He may still have a…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Harris v. Plant & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Wilson v. SheppardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Sowell v. Bank of BrewtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Bryan v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Gayle v. BishopSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.