French v. Hall
| Decision Date | 29 November 1886 |
| Citation | 119 U.S. 152,30 L.Ed. 375,7 S.Ct. 170 |
| Parties | FRENCH v. HALL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Amos Steck
E. O. Wolcott, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, a citizen of Massachusetts, brought his action at law in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado, against the defendant in error, to recover for the value of services alleged to have been performed by him for the defendant as a broker, in reference to the sale of certain mining property in which the defendant was interested. There was a general denial by the answer of the defendant, and the cause was submitted to a jury upon the issue joined. The record shows that on the first trial there was a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $5,000, which, on a motion for a new trial, was set aside on payment of costs. Thereupon, at a subsequent term, the cause came on again for trial by jury, and there was a verdict for the defendant, and judgment rendered thereon, to reverse which is the object of the present writ of error
It appears from the bill of exceptions taken on the second trial that the plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part, gave evidence tending to prove that the defendant, Hall, promised to pay him $5,000 for his services in assisting the defendant to make sale of certain mining property in which he was interested. The defendant, to maintain the issue on his part, gave evidence tending to prove that he never promised to pay the plaintiff any sum whatever. The defendant, while on the stand as a witness, on cross-examination, testified that he never told any one that he promised to pay the plaintiff the sum of $5,000; and further testified that he never told the attorney of the plaintiff, Mason B. Carpenter, that he promised to pay the plaintiff the sum of $5,000. The plaintiff in rebuttal offered as a witness the said attorney, Mason B. Carpenter, who was the sole attorney of the plaintiff in conducting the trial of said cause; and who offered to testify that the defendant, Hall, had told him, the said Carpenter, that at a certain time and place he, the defendant, promised to pay the plaintiff, French, the sum of $5,000. The court refused to allow the said Carpenter to be sworn as a witness for the plaintiff because he was acting as an attorney for the plaintiff in conducting the trial of the cause, to which ruling the counsel for the plaintiff excepted.
It further appears from the bill of exceptions that afterwards, upon a motion for a new trial, the court said that the said Carpenter was, in fact, competent to testify as a witness for the plaintiff, but that his testimony was not offered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Birdman
...Witnesses § 113 (1957 & Supp. 1978) (criminal); Annot., 54 A.L.R.3d 100, § 3 (1973) (criminal); See, e.g., French v. Hall, 119 U.S. 152, 7 S.Ct. 170, 30 L.Ed. 375 (1886) (civil); decisions cited in note 35, Infra (criminal).33 See authorities cited in note 32, Supra (trial court permitted t......
-
Edmiston v. Wilson
...an attorney may, with propriety, continue as counsel, though he has been called as a witness, but they are rare.' In French v. Hall, 119 U.S. 152, 7 S.Ct. 170, 30 L.Ed. 375, the opinion contains these statements: 'There is nothing in the policy of the law, as there is no positive enactment,......
-
People v. Smith
...with the factfinding process at the point where the attorney argues in support of his own testimony. (French v. Hall (1886) 119 U.S. 152, 154--155, 7 S.Ct. 170, 30 L.Ed. 375; Tomlin v. State, supra, 407 P.2d at p. 1022; Renault, Inc. v. Auto Imports, Ltd. (1963) 39 Misc.2d 25, 239 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Enquire Printing and Pub. Co., Inc. v. O'Reilly
...matter, or the need for the testimony arises from an exigency not reasonably foreseeable. State v. Blake, supra; French v. Hall, 119 U.S. 152, 7 S.Ct. 170, 30 L.Ed. 375 (1886); Miller v. Urban, 123 Conn. 331, 333-34, 195 A. 193 (1937) .... Where, however, an attorney does not withdraw, a co......
-
A Fool for a Witness: The Testifying Lawyer
...a trial lawyer was “competent” to testify, while “discountenancing” the practice. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in French v. Hall , 119 U.S. 152 (1886), reversed a trial court’s exclusion of the testimony of plaintiff’s counsel. The testimony would have contradicted the testimony of t......