Godette v. Gaskill
| Decision Date | 22 September 1909 |
| Citation | 151 N.C. 52,65 S.E. 612 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GODETTE. v. GASKILL. |
Touts (§ 13*)—Perjury—Civil Liability. A civil action for damages by a party to a former action against a witness therein for alleged willful and false testimony resulting in plaintiff's defeat does not lie either at common law or by statute.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Torts, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. § 13.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; O. H. Allen, Judge.
Action by Jesse P. Godette against S. B. Gaskill. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
W. D. McIver and R. A. Nunn, for appellant.
This is an action for damages against the defendant for willful and false testimony as a witness in an action formerly tried, which had been brought by the plaintiff against one Bowen, alleging that by reason of such false testimony of the defendant the plaintiff had lost his suit against Bowen.
There is no precedent in this state; but an action on this ground has been brought in other jurisdictions, which have uniformly held that such actions cannot be maintained. It was so held as far back as Damport v. Sympson, Cro. Eliz. 220, and Eyres v. Sedge-wick, Cro. Jac. 160. Subsequently a statute was enacted authorizing such action in certain cases; but even that statute, it seems, is now deemed obsolete in England. It was held that such action does not lie. Dunlap v. Glidden, 31 Me. 439, 52 Am. Dec. 625; Phelps v. Stearns, 4 Gray (Mass.) 106, 64 Am. Dec. 61; Cunningham v. Brown, 18 Vt. 126, 46 Am. Dec. 140; Bostwick v. Lewis, 2 Day (Conn.) 456; Smith v. Lewis, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 165, 169, 3 Am. Dec. 469; Grove v. Brandenburg, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 235. And this is true of subornation of perjury. Taylor v. Bidwell, 65 Cal. 490, 4 Pac. 491; 1 Cyc. 687; 22 A. & E. 698. Rice v. Coolidge, 121 Mass. 393, 23 Am. Rep. 279, holds that one not a party to the action in which the perjury was committed may maintain an action for tort against one who suborned witnesses to swear falsely in that action, whereby plaintiff's character was defamed.
The authorities above cited rest upon two grounds: (1) There was no precedent for such action, and, indeed, the precedents were against it. (2) It "would overhale, " as Chancellor Kent says, in Smith v. Lewis, 3 Johns.
(N. Y.) 166, 3 Am. Dec. 469, the decision of the former case to which the plaintiff in the new action had been a party. We think there Is a third reason, in that it would multiply and extend litigation if the matter could be re-examined by a new action between a party to the action and a witness therein; and, more than that, witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Alker
...2 Cir., 220 F. 2d 593, 615-616; cf. Findlay v. McAllister, 113 U.S. 104, 114, 5 S.Ct. 401, 28 L.Ed. 930. 2 Godette v. Gaskill, 151 N.C. 52, 53, 65 S.E. 612, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 265; Stevens v. Rowe, 59 N.H. 578; Hocker v. Welti, 239 Ill.App. 392, 3 Cf. Robinson v. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co., ......
-
Wynn v. Earin
...560, 561, 799 N.Y.S.2d 273 (2005); Allan & Allan Arts Ltd. v. Rosenblum, 201 A.D.2d 136, 615 N.Y.S.2d 410 (1994); Godette v. Gaskill, 151 N.C. 52, 65 S.E. 612 (1909); Riemers v. O'Halloran, 2004 ND 79, 678 N.W.2d 547, 551-52 (2004); Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 448-49, 453 N.E.2d......
-
Henry v. Deen
...that criminal sanctions for perjury are available, and therefore no tort recovery for perjury is allowable. In Godette v. Gaskill, 151 N.C. 52, 65 S.E. 612 (1909), this Court denied the right to recover for damages resulting from perjury in an earlier trial. The Court based its holding on t......
-
Bailey v. McGill, 175
...is given with express malice and knowledge of it falsity. Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N.C. 468, 80 S.E.2d 248; Godette v. Gaskill, 151 N.C. 52, 65 S.E. 612, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 265; Ramsey v. Cheek, 109 N.C. 270, 13 S.E. 775. The great weight of American authority supports this rule. See cases cited ......