Byers v. Thompson
| Citation | 66 Ill. 421,1872 WL 8596 |
| Parties | JAMES BYERS, JR.v.JOSEPH THOMPSON. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1872 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of De Kalb county; the Hon. THEO. D. MURPHY, Judge, presiding.
The circuit court, on the trial of this cause, instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence that plaintiff did certain work on the farm of the deceased, for which he had not been paid or compensated, and that he is lawfully entitled to recover therefor, then the jury should find for the plaintiff.
Mr. CHARLES KELLUM, for the appellant.
Messrs. DIVINE & PRATT, for the appellee.
Appellee filed a claim in the county court of De Kalb county, against the estate of his father, who was deceased. On the 25th day of November, 1870, a trial was had by the court and a jury, when a verdict was found for appellee for $700, and the same was allowed as a fourth class debt against the estate. The administrator prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court, where there was a trial resulting in a verdict for $800, and an order for its allowance was entered, and the administrator has brought the record to this court on appeal.
On the trial in the court below appellant offered Augustus and Edward Thompson as witnesses, but, on being objected to by appellee on the ground that they were his brothers, and co-heirs to their father's estate, and therefore incompetent, the objection was sustained by the court, and they were not permitted to testify. It is urged that as such heirs they are incompetent under the eighth section of the act of 1867 in reference to the competency of witnesses. In the case of Freeman v. Freeman, 62 Ill. 189, it was held that under that act, the husband of the heir of a deceased person was a competent witness on the trial of a claim against her father's estate. It was also said in that case that the wife and heir would be competent in such a case. Now, the first section of that act declares that no person shall be disqualified as a witness on account of his or her interest in the event of the suit, etc. And the eighth section declares that nothing in the act should affect the laws existing relating to the settlement of estates, etc. When we turn to the statute on that subject we find that a claimant against an estate might prove his claim by his own oath, unless objected to by the administrator or executor.
The design of this clause in the eighth section of...
To continue reading
Request your trial