Case ID: dc_8/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ANDREW NOERR AND JOHN G. BUTLER, ADMINISTRATORS, &c., OF SOPHIA E. COLTMAN, vs. CHARLES J. BREWER.
    The act of March 3,18G5, providing “that in actions hy or against executors, &c:, neither party shall he allowed to testify against the other, as to any transactions with, or statements hy, the testator,” &c., applies to actions in the supreme court of the District of Columbia. The principle is again announced, that this is a court of the United States.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    On the trial of this case the counsel for the defendant requested the justice presiding to require the defendant to testify as to a transaction with the plaintiff’s testator on the 8th of February, 1871, which said justice refused to do. The defendant then offered himself as a witness, and his counsel offered to prove by him what occurred between himself and the testatrix, Sophia Coltman, on the said February 8,1871, with relation to the bonds in controversy. Plaintiff insisted he was not competent for the purpose offered, and the justice refused to allow him to testify. Defendant excepted to such ruling. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff.
    
      Riddle and Miller for the plaintiff.
    
      James G. Payne, for the defendant, contended that—
    The court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to testify.
    The act of Congress approved July 2,1804, provides, “ that upon the trial of any issue joined, or other proceeding, in any court of justice in the District of Columbia, the parties thereto are competent and compellable to give evidence viva voce or by deposition,” &c. 13 Stats, at Large, 374.
    In the civil appropriation bill passed by the same Congress, it is provided “ that in the courts of the United States there shall he no exclusion of any witness on account of color, nor in civil actions because he is a party to or interested in the issue tried.” 13 Stats. at Large, 551.
    On the 3d of March, 1865, this act was amended by adding the proviso, “that in actions by or against executors, &c., neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other as to any transaction with, or statement by, the testator,” &c. 13 Stats. at Large, 533.
    This amendatory act makes no reference whatever to the act first above cited, and as it does not amend or modify that act in terms, neither can it be held to do so by implication. It is specific in its terms and application. Had it repealed the statute which it amends or modifies, parties to suits in the courts of this District would still be competent witnesses under the act first above cited, and which was passed expressly for this District.
   By the Court :

The act of Congress approved July 2, 1861, applies in terms only to courts in the District of Columbia, and the act of March 3, 1865; extends to the courts of the United States, without express reference to this District; but we have had occasion at least twice to declare that this is a court of the United States, and in this determination we have been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States. We again announce it emphatically, and that a general law relating to such courts in language like the one in question, necessarily applies here.

Judgment affirmed.