Knowles v. Boylston

Decision Date09 October 1931
Citation137 So. 6,103 Fla. 20
PartiesKNOWLES v. BOYLSTON.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Circuit Court, Sarasota County; Paul C. Albritton, Judge.

Suit by S. Davis Boylston against G. B. Knowles, executor of the last will and testament of Mary Ella Boyette, deceased. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant brings error.

Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

Transactions and communications under the purview of section 2705, Rev Gen. St. 1920, section 4372, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, embrace every variety of affairs which can form the subject of negotiation, interviews, or actions between two persons, and include every method by which one person can derive impressions or information from the conduct, condition, or language of another; and, in a case where such transactions or communications were had between a party to a suit, or one interested in the event thereof, and a party dead, lunatic or insane at the time they are offered in evidence, they cannot be testified to by such party to the suit or by any one interested in the event thereof, except as to matters properly a part of the suppletory oath in connection with books of account offered in evidence under the provisions of section 2738, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, section 4410, Comp. Gen Laws 1927.

Where A testifies that 'B is indebted to me in the sum of ----- dollars,' the witness testifies to a conclusion of law and therefore such testimony is not admissible in evidence.

COUNSEL

J. Henry Taylor, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Marion B. Jennings, of Sarasota, for defendant in error.

OPINION

BUFORD C.J.

This was a suit by defendant in error against the plaintiff in error in his representative capacity wherein the declaration was in three common counts based upon an alleged obligation originating in the lifetime of Mary Ella Boyette, the deceased testatrix, from her to the plaintiff. During the progress of the trial, the plaintiff was allowed over the objection of the defendant to testify concerning a transaction between himself and the decedent in violation of the provisions of section 2705, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, section 4372, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927. This section was section 1095, Revised Statutes 1892. Construing that section, this court in the case of Chapin et al. v. Mitchell, 44 Fla. 225, 32 So. 875, 876, said:

'Transactions and communications embrace every variety of affairs which can form the subject of negotiation, interviews, or actions between two persons, and include every method by which one person can derive impressions or information from the conduct, condition, or language of another; and in a case where such transactions or communications were had between a party to a suit, or one interested in the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Pearl Realty Co. v. Wells
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1933
    ...471; Atwood v. Meredith, 37 Miss. 635; Welch v. Hannie, 112 Miss. 79, 72 So. 861; Birmingham v. Hudson, 222. Ala. 332, 132 So. 1; Knowles v. Boylston, 137 So. 6. It error to permit the introduction of the contract exhibit "A" and the letter exhibit "B" to the testimony of J. H. Wells. Fondr......
  • Habig v. Bastian
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1935
    ...Thomas, 93 Fla. 67, 111 So. 541; Madison v. Robinson, 95 Fla. 321, 116 So. 31; Le Blanc v. Yawn, 99 Fla. 328, 126 So. 789; Knowles v. Boylston, 103 Fla. 20, 137 So. 6; Catlett v. Chestnut, 107 Fla. 498, 146 So. 241, A. L. R. 212. The question presented here involves the law relating to the ......
  • Stigletts v. Mcdonald
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1938
    ...the donee was not a competent witness in this case under the provisions of section 2705 R.G.S., section 4372, C.G.L. See Knowles v. Boylston, 103 Fla. 20, 137 So. 6; Munroe v. Carroll, 80 Fla. 206, 86 So. Holmes v. Kilgore, 89 Fla. 194, 103 So. 825; Madison v. Robinson, 95 Fla. 321, 116 So.......
  • Johns v. Modern Home Crafters, Inc.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1958
    ...that another is indebted to him in a stated amount is a conclusion of law. 32 C.J.S. Evidence Sec. 453, p. 91, note 67; Knowles v. Boylston, 103 Fla. 20, 137 So. 6; Frederick v. Ballard, 16 Neb. 559, 20 N.W. 870; Parker v. Otis, 130 Cal. 322, 62 P. Likewise, the evidence constituted a depar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT