Baker v. Kellogg
Ohio Supreme Court
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to tbe District Court of Sandusky county. The plaintiffs in error brought their ,action against the defendants in error upon a promissory note made by the defendants to the intestate for the sum of $400. Nickols made no defense.
Read the full summary
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to tbe District Court of Sandusky county. The plaintiffs in error brought their ,action against the defendants in error upon a promissory note made by the defendants to the intestate for the sum of $400. Nickols made no defense. Kellogg answered, setting up as a defense that he signed the note as surety, and that after the note became due he had served upon the plaintiffs a written notice requiring them forthwith to commence an action on the note, and that the plaintiffs did not bring the action within a reasonable time thereafter. Issue was tafeen…
1Opinion of the CourtWelch, C. J.
In our judgment the court did not err in admitting Nickols as a witness. There was no controversy between him and the plaintiffs. In order to render a party *665incompetent as a witness under section 313 of the civil code (as amended March 23, 1875, 72 Ohio L. 77), the parties must be adverse in interest, and not merely in their nominal status in the case, as plaintiffs or defendants. Here the only issue in the case was between 'the plaintiffs and Kellogg, and the fact that Nickols was joined with him in the action is no good reaso.n why he should be deprived of the benefit of Niekols’ testimony.
A…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Burton v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
- Wright v. KaynorMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Hudson v. CozartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Lawson v. Conley (In re Conley)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012
- Brocalsa Chemical Co. v. LangsenkampCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.