Legal Opinion

Porter v. Rea

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided August 15, 1839PublishedCited by 2 opinions

“The appellants will contend that the judgment of the Circuit Court ought to be reversed upon the ground that Horsley ea was a competent witness, to pyove the facts proposed by him, and ought not to have been rejected by the Court below. See 4th John Rep. 129, M’Cleod vs Johnson, and note [a] and authorities there cited, see 5th Massachusetts reports, David Webster vs William Levi 334, et seq. See 2 John R. 394, Jackson, on the demise of Caldwell, vs Ilal-Jenback.

Read the full summary

“The appellants will contend that the judgment of the Circuit Court ought to be reversed upon the ground that Horsley ea was a competent witness, to pyove the facts proposed by him, and ought not to have been rejected by the Court below. See 4th John Rep. 129, M’Cleod vs Johnson, and note [a] and authorities there cited, see 5th Massachusetts reports, David Webster vs William Levi 334, et seq. See 2 John R. 394, Jackson, on the demise of Caldwell, vs Ilal-Jenback. See 7 T. E. 480 Ildenton against Adkinson, and note to the case 1. Term Report, 163, Carter vs Pearse aduar. — Sth Wendells, Rep.…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court delivered by

Napton Judge.

“John Rea, assignee of Horsley Rea, sued Moore* and Porter by petition m debt. On the trial of the cause., the plaintiff proved the assignment of the note, and gave the note in evidence to the jury. The defendant, in support oí his plea of set off, offered to prove what Hors-ley Rea, the assignor, had said in a conversation with defendants, subsequently to the assignment of the note — in which he admitted that he owed defendants $189, and it was still due, but the court refused to allow this evidence to be given. The defendants then introduced…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Whitaker v. BrownCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1832
  2. Carrel v. EarlyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1815
  3. Sharp v. WickliffeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1823

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Clinton v. EstesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1859
  2. Armstrong v. FarrarSupreme Court of Missouri · 1844

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API