Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

e. Tenant of Devisee in ejectment, by Heir v. De.

visee.
f. Party to negotiable paper to impeach the same.

g. Effect of pardon with proviso.

3. Subscribing
XXVI. Written Contract-Parol Evidence to vary-

Ambiguitas latens.

1. Admission.

1. A deliberate acknowledgment of a note being due ought to conclude tho
party, unless strong evidence be offered to sbow a mistak

Bazen v. Roget, 536.

II. Admiralty survey.
2. Admiralty surveys as to seaworthiness of vessels, are not evidence of the

facts stated in them. Abbott v. Sebor. Same v. United Ins. Co. Robin-
80n v. The Same, 39.

III. Adultery.

3. Feigned issued from chancery to try the fact of adultery. Confessions of
the wife connected with other proof, and not fraudulently made, admitted

Doe v. Roe, 424. See vol. 1, p. 25.

IV. Ancient Deed.

4. A will executed in 1723, and which had been proved by the witnesses in 1733

and 1744, and recorded, but not in a manner authorized by law, was al-
lowed to be read in evidence, on the trial of an action of ejectment, in
1801, as an ancient deed; though actual possession did not follow and ac-
company the will, that being explained by the peculiar situatiou of the
property in question ; and other circumstances shown, to raise a presump-

tion of the existence and genuineness of the will.
The general rule in reference to proof of ancient deeds is that a deed appear-

ing to be of the age of thirty years, may be given in evidence, without
proof of its execution, if the possession be shown to have accompanied it,
or where no possession has accompanied it, if such account be given of the
deed, as may be reasonably expected under all the circumstances of the
case, and will afford the presumption that it is genuine. Per Radcliff, J.
Livingston and Thompson, J., concurring. Kent, J., diss.

Jackson, cx dem. Lewis v. Laroway, 283.
Cases and authorities, 292, n. (a) and (6.)

V. Attainder.

5. A conviction and attainder in pursuance of the act of the 22d October,

1779, considered as a statute attainder.
The rule in such cases is, that an incomplete description may be aided by
proof, but a false or repugnant description cannot.

Jackson, er dem. St. Croix v. Sands, 491. Seo vol. 2, p. 267.

VI. Bills of Exchange, foc.
See Bills OF EXCHANGE, PROMISSORY NOTES AND

CHECKS, XIII. 4. See Infra, XXV., Witness.

VII. Bond.

See Infra, XXV., Witness.

VIII. Breach of Promise.
6. On a promise of marriage the licentious conduct of the female plaintiff

admitted to be shown without any restriction as to the time of the promise
or the intended marriage, with a view to the stion of damages. Ch. J.

Lansing, contra. Johnson v. Caulkins, 437.
See vol. 1, p. 116, 118, n. (a.)

IX. Debt.

7. In debt on a judgment in a neighboring state, nil debet is a denial of the
whole declaration, and the judgment must be proved.

Rush v. Cobbett, 500. See vol. 2, p. 256, 257, n. (a.)

X. Declarations of Party.
See Supra, I., Admission.

XI. Deed.

See Infra.

XII. Demurrer to.

See DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE.

XIII. Deposition de bene esse.

8. A deposition admitted to be read, which was taken de bene esse, on the

same day on which an order for that purpose was obtained, and notice

thereof given to the opposite party, under circumstances which did not ad-
mit of delay, and were previously not known, and this before declaration
filed, but after the writ was returned.

Mumford v. Church, 441. See vol. 1, p. 147, 150, n. (a)

XIV. Ejectment.
See EJECTMENT, VI.

XV. Forgery.

9. On a defence of forgery to a note of hand,
Ist. Proof of “ former notes drawn and endorsed by the same parties, and

that to take up one of them (the defendant not knowing of the alteration)

the present note was given," ought to be admitted.
2d. A memorandum of a deceased partner of defendant, no evidence.
3d. An alteration apparent on the face of the note, not of itself enough, un.

less coupled with other evidence. Rankin v. Blackwell, 488.
10. The apparent alteration on the face of a note, and an obscure memeran-

dum of a deceased partner of defendant, and the general proof that tho
endorser had forged other notes, are not competent evidences to prove for-
gery ; the first and last circumstances might be admitted in aid, if there
was other proof. Rankin v. Blackwell, 524. See vol. 2, p. 198.

XVI. Judgments, Decrees and Sentences.

11. A foreign sentence of an admiralty court is conclusive between the as-
surer and the assured.-(Reversed in error, in a like case.)

See Ludlows y. Dale, 426.
Goix v. Knox, vol. 1, p. 16, n. (a), 337, 341, n. (c), vol. 2, 144, n. (b), (c),
168, n. (6.)

See Infra, Record.

XVII. Pardon.

See WITNESS, Infra, XXV., 2, (g.)

XVIII. Parol Evidence to vary terms of written paper.

See Infra, XXVI., Written Contract.

XIX. Presumption.

1. Coroborating circumstances.

See Supra, Forgery.

2. Of Indebtedness.
12. Indorsements on a bond of the testator, that plaintiff had assumed to pay

it, without more, are not enough to charge him, although a legates with

the debt of another.
The acts of the testator, may in some cases, be evidence of a debt against
his legalee. Rickets v. Livingston, 479. See vol. 2, p. 97.

3. Of Grants.
13. Patents and grants are in a variety of cases to be presumed even within

the time of legal memory for the sake of quieting an ancient possession.

Per Kent, J. Jackson, er dem. Gansevoort v. Lunn, 109, 539.
Cascs and authorities on the doctrine that a presumption is indulged in favor
of the right of a person in possession of property, 124, n. (6.)

4. Of Disabilities.
14. The court will not intend a disability. It lays with the party interested
to show it. Per Kent, J.

Jackson, ez dem. Gansevoort v. Lunn, 109, 539.

XX. Private Act.

See Infra, XXIV., Statute.

XXI. Receipt.
15. A receipt in full for money, not conclusive evidence, where parol proof of
mistake can be given.

Ensign v. Webster, 440. See vol. 1, p. 145, 146, n. (a.)

XXII. Record.

1. Attestation of from another State.
16. A copy of the record from the court of another State, must, according

to the act of congress be accompanied with a certificate of the presiding
judge of the court, that the attestation is in due form, &c.

Smith v. Blagge, 448. See vol. 1, p. 238, 239, n. (6.)
See Doe v. Roe, 467, vol. 1, p. 402.

2. Of Will.
17. The record of a will proved under the statute, (sess. 24, c. 9, s. 6,) is not

conclusive upon the heir, so as to prevent the admission of evidence to im.
peach its validity. The record of a will, like that of a deed, is only prima
facie evidence of its authenticity.

Jackson, ex dem. Woodhull v. Rumsey, 234. See 236, n. (a.)

XXIII. Resulting trust.
18. May be proved by parol. Jackson, ez dem. Kanes v. Sternbergh, 440.
See vol. 1, p. 153, 155, n. (d.)

XXIV. Statute.
19. It seems that the printed statute book containing a private act, may be

given in evidence against the party, for whose benefit the act was passed,
for he is presumed to be conusant of it, and cannot be surprised by the evi-

dence.
A new trial will not be granted on the mere technical objection, as to the

admission of a printed statute book in evidence, when it appears that the
printed statute was correct, and an exemplification of it, on a new trial,

would be the same evidence. Duncan v. Duboys, 125.
Cases, authorities and statutes of 1828 and 1830, 126, n. (a.)

XXV. Witness.

1. Attachment against.
20. Attachment granted against a witness who refused to attend after sub.

pæna served and expenses tendered.
Andrews v. Sweet, 470. S. C. nom Andrews v. Andrews, vol. 2, p. 109.

2. Competency.
a. General rule as to incompetency arising from interest.
21. The general rule is, that if a witness cannot gain or lose, by the event of

a suit, or if the verdict cannot be given in evidence, for or against him, in

another suit, the objection goes to his credit and not to his competency.
An interest in the question only, does not disqualify a witness, but the objec-

tion goes to his credit only. Van Nuys v. Terhune, 81.
Cases and authorities, 83, n. (6.)

b. of Witness, or wife of Witness, to devise.
22. A devise to a wife, her husband being a witness to the will, is void.

Jackson, ez dem. Beach v. Durland, 510. See vol. 2, p. 314.
23. The unity of husband and wife is such, that if either be a witness to a

will containing a devise or bequest to the other, such devise or bequest is
void within the intent of the statute conce

ncerning wills.
Jackson, ex dem. Cooder v. Woods, 438. See vol. 1, 163, 167, n. (6.)

c. Owner for master, in Master v. Shipper.
24. The owner of a vessel, although, in the first instance, liable for the de-

fault of his captain to the shi yet when he has paid the money to the
shipper and the captain has also re-imbursed to him the sum so paid, is a
competent witness in an action between the captain and shipper concern.

ing the same matter.
2d. A question on the weight of evidence.

Coles v. Billings, 450. See vol. 1, p. 270.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »