Foster v. Scoffield
New York Supreme Court
■ THIS was an action of trespass, for asssaulting, beating, seducing, debauching, and getting with child, the daughter of the plaintiff, per quod servitium amisit. Plea not guilty. The cause was tried at the West-Chester circuit, on the 21st of May, 1805, before Mr. Justice Livingston. The plaintiff produced his daughter, who proved the seduction, &c.
Read the full summary
■ THIS was an action of trespass, for asssaulting, beating, seducing, debauching, and getting with child, the daughter of the plaintiff, per quod servitium amisit. Plea not guilty. The cause was tried at the West-Chester circuit, on the 21st of May, 1805, before Mr. Justice Livingston. The plaintiff produced his daughter, who proved the seduction, &c. She was then asked by the defendant’s counsel, whether the defendant had promised her marriage, previous to that fact ? This question was objected to on the part of the defendant; but on the plaintiff’s counsel offering to stipulate that the…
1Opinion of the CourtKent, C. J.
The difficulty is, that in this way, you do, in effect, make the daughter a witness in her own cause.
Emmett. But if she were incompetent, yet she has agreed to bring no action against the defendant, thereby relinquishing her right, and removing all objections to her competency. This sort of action, has, of late years, been much freed from those technical rules by which it was originally framed. It is now, no longer a mere remedy for loss of service. That is used as mere form or colour of action. In the case of Bedford v. M’Kowl,* where the counsel for the defendant objected to the admission…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Cheney v. . ArnoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Wells v. PadgettNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Parker v. MonteithOregon Supreme Court · 1879
- Cheney v. ArnoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Haynes v. SinclairSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.