Shepherd & Co. v. Goss
| Decision Date | 31 December 1809 |
| Court | Tennessee Circuit Court |
| Parties | SHEPHERD & CO. v. GOSS. |
Appeal.--Case on a note to which there were two subscribing witnesses.
Dickinson, for plaintiff, proved the death and handwriting of one of the witnesses and there rested his case, observing that such was the modern practice in England.
Dickinson, for the plaintiff. Smith, for defendant.
The proof is not sufficient, agreeably to the practice which had hitherto prevailed in the State. Proof by one living witness would be sufficient. In this case it does not appear but that the other witness is living, and, if so, his testimony ought to be had. Some account of this witness ought to be given; that he is dead, that inquiry in the neighborhood of his residence has been made after him without effect, or that he has removed to some foreign nation. If he resides in another State, his testimony ought to be had, such having been the uniform course of decisions here. We are, however, aware that the rules of evidence respecting proof by subscribing witnesses have been much relaxed by modern decisions in England as well as several of the States.a1
Nonsuit.
Dickinson, on the argument day, moved to set the nonsuit aside, stating that he was misled by the modern authorities referred to by the Court. He did not know the law was settled as the Court had stated; he hoped the Court would admit an investigation by granting a new trial.
Let the nonsuit be set aside, and a new trial granted, on the payment of the costs of this term.
a1. See East, 250; 4 Johns., 461; Camp., 412; Taunt., 364.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sleet v. Gilmore
-
Crockett v. Crockett
...themselves that such a practice would be tolerated. This is determined in the case of Stump v. Hughes, 5 Haywood, 93, where the case in 1 Tenn. 487 is expressly referred to and overruled. And this principle is sustained by the English courts and by almost all those of the United States. We ......
-
Stump v. Hughes
...when he is dead, or resides beyond the limits of the State, or is to remain there on business until after the trial. (Overruling Shepherd v. Goss, 1 Tenn., 487. And see Acc. Crockett v. Crockett, Meigs, 95, citing this case. Harrel v. Ward, 2 Sn., 610; Den v. Mayfield, 5 Hay., 121.) [Cited ......