Weed v. Martin
| Decision Date | 19 June 1890 |
| Citation | 8 So. 132,89 Ala. 587 |
| Parties | WEED v. MARTIN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Dale county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.
Action by Haywood Martin against John H. Weed. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
H. L. Martin, for appellant.
The suit is for money paid, through mistake, by plaintiff to defendant. The case turns on the correctness of a credit placed on a note, on October 2, 1882, which purported to be for $117.81. The defendant testified that the credit should have been for $17.81 only, and that this sum only had been paid. The plaintiff introduced as a witness one Tobe Martin, one of the makers of the note, who swore that he himself entered the credit in controversy for $117.81, and that this was the amount he had paid on the note, at the time, in money and goods, and that he knew it had been paid. The plaintiff was permitted to ask the witness "if he would have put the credit of $117.81 on said note if he had not paid it," and he answered that he would not. To this evidence the defendant duly excepted. The court erred in admitting this testimony of the witness. It was but the expression of an opinion of what he would have done in a certain contingency,-an act originating in a secret, uncommunicated motive, which was not the legitimate subject of testimony. The credit, moreover, may have originated in mistake, and not intentional dishonesty, and, in this aspect, the witness was allowed to testify that he would not have committed such a mistake as putting a credit of $117.81 on a note when only $17.81 had been actually paid. There is a class of cases where a witness, in whose handwriting the items of an account are charged, is allowed to testify to the correctness of the transaction, although he remembered nothing as to the facts, as in Wright v. Bolling, 27 Ala. 259. So it is common for a witness to vouch for the accuracy or regularity of the execution of a conveyance, or other paper, verified by his known signature as an attesting witness, although he may not remember the facts attending the transaction. 2 Tayl. Ev. § 1412. These cases rest on another principle, the present evidence not coming within their influence. Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ferguson
...also warps the rules of evidence, which forbid a witness to testify what he would or would not have done in a stated contingency. Weed v. Martin, 89 Ala. 587, 8 South. 132: Would you have put the credit on the note if the money had not been paid? Smith v. Telegraph Co., 83 Ky. 104, 4 Am. St......
-
Western Union Telegraph Company v. Ferguson
... ... Ferguson No. 19,576 Supreme Court of Indiana May 28, 1901 ... From ... Monroe Circuit Court; W. H. Martin, Judge ... Action ... against telegraph company for damages. From action of court ... in overruling demurrer to complaint, ... also warps the rules of evidence which forbid a witness to ... testify what he would or would not have done in a stated ... contingency. Weed v. Martin, 89 Ala. 587, 8 ... So. 132: Would you have put the credit on the note if the ... money had not been paid? Smith v. Western Union ... ...
-
Western Union Telegraph Company v. Love Banks Company
...67; 6 S.E. 813; 8 S. 746; 78 Me. 97; 2 A. 847; 2 W. Cond. (Tex.) § 113; 19 S.E. 366; 21 S.E. 212; 32 So. 310; 29 So. 787; 60 N.W. 677; 89 Ala. 587, S.C. So. 132; 83 Ky. 104, S.C. 4 Am. St. 125; 51 N.Y. 668; 1 Tex. Civ. App. 1 S.C. 20 S.W. 725; 87 Wis. 297; S.C. 58 N.W. 391; 54 S.W. 825; 43 ......
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Adams Machine Co.
...universally held that it is inadmissible for the plaintiff to testify what he would or would not have done in a contingency. Weed v. Martin, 89 Ala. 587, 8 So. 132; Smith v. Telegraph Co., supra; Western, etc., Tel. v. Ferguson, 51 S.E. 290. And damages sought to be recovered of a common ca......