This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Stevenson vs. Chapman
January 1, 1842 - Opinion
Case records
Open case page| Date | Record Text | Type | Party | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| January 1, 1842 | Stevenson vs. Chapman Current page | Opinion | Supreme Court | Reporter |
Stevenson vs. Chapman.
A grantor may be a witness to show that his deed is invalid, even for fraud, if he have no interest in the case. The weight of his testimony, if he swear to his own turpitude, is to be considered by the jury.
Writ of Entry, to recover an undivided half of about fifty acres of land in Tamworth.
Prior to 1835, Joseph A. Whitten was the owner of one half of the tract described. The plaintiff offered in evidence a deed from Whitten to himself, dated the 25th of April, 1835, purporting to convey one undivided half of the tract, which was recorded June 2d, 1835.
The defendant introduced a deed executed by Whitten to himself, of an undivided half of the tract, dated the 27th day of April, 1835, and recorded June 21, 1836. He further offered in evidence the deposition of said Whitten, which was objected to by the plaintiff, on the ground that said Whitten was not a competent witness; but a release being introduced, executed to Whitten, by the defendant, before the deposition was taken, discharging and releasing him from all the covenants contained in his deed to the defendant, the evidence was admitted by the court. cited 5 N. H. Rep. 181, Hadduek vs. Wilmarth; 2 N. U. Rep. 212, Bryant vs. Ritlerbush; 5 Mass. R. 559, Hill vs: Pay-son; 11 Mass. 498, Loker vs. Haynes; 4 Mass. 441, Twam-bly vs. Henley; 6 Johns. R. 135, Jackson vs. Frost & a.; 2 Stark. Ev. 179, note; Odióme vs. Howard, (Strafford, Dec. 1839:) 5 Coteen 23, Stafford vs. Rice; Ditto 153, Bank of Utica vs. Hillard; 20 Johns. 285, Tuthill vs. Davis; 3 Wend. R. 415, Williams vs. Walbridge; 6 Wend. 415, Jackson vs. Packard; 17 Johns. 188, McFadden vs. Maxwell; 1 Phil. Ev. 36.
James Bell, & N. Emerson, for the defendant,
Bartlett, Sp Peabody, for the plaintiff.
Parker, C. J.
The objection to the admission of the witness cannot be supported.
It seems to be well settled, that a grantor may be a witness to show that his deed is invalid, even for fraud, if he have no interest in the case. 5 N. H. Rep. 181, Hadduck vs. Wilmarth; 9 N. H. Rep. 347, Marston vs. Brackett; 2 Ld. Raym. 1008, Title vs. Grevett; 11 Mass. R. 368, Worcester vs. Eaton; Ditto 498, Loker vs. Haynes; 15 Pick. R. 420, Hudson vs. Hurlburt; 13 Maine 9, Wise vs. Tripp; 4 Vermont R. 493, Seymour's Ad'r vs, Beach; 6 Johns. R. 135, Jackson vs. Frost; 6 Wend. R. 415, Jackson vs. Packard.
The weight of his testimony, if he swear to his own turpitude, is to be considered by the jury. It is now settled in this state, in relation to negotiable paper, that a party who has given currency to it is a competent witness to show that it was void at the time. 9 N. H. Rep. 349, Marston vs. Brackett; Odiorne vs. Howard (10 N. H. Rep. 343); Haines vs. Dennett, (11 N. H. Rep. 180.)
Judgment for the defendant.