Case ID: pen-w_2/html/0138-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Pbr curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM BLACK against JOHN MARVIN.
    IN ERROR.
    One partner is not a competent witness for his co-partner, in an action brought against him, which arose out of a partnership transaction: nor can he be made so by a release from liability to contribute.
    Writ of error to the Common Pleas of Crawford eounty.
    This was an action brought by Marvin against Black, for not delivering goods, which he had undertaken to carry.
    The defendant offered Gibson as a witness, who was objected to by the plaintiff, on the ground of his having been a partner of Black, in the transaction out of which this suit arose. Whereupon Black executed a release to Gibson, of which the following is an extract, “do hereby release, discharge, and acquit herefrom all liability, negligence in hauling butter, cheese, &c., from Cen-tre county: and from actions, causes of action, suits or demands,arising out of the-said transaction in way or manner whatever: hereby totally discharging the said Robert from all kind of responsibility in the same.”
    The Court (Shippen, President) rejected the witness.
    
      Selden for plaintiff in error.
    Whether the plaintiff recovered in this action against Black or not, he could- not sustain another action against Gibson. And as to Gibson's liability to Black, he was released from it.
    
      Wallace for defendant in error.
    There are two grounds why a partner is not a competent witness. One is, that the joint funds are diminished by a recovery.. And the-other that he is liable to contribution, in this case the first reason is conclusive, why the witness was properly rejected.
   Pbr curiam.

The interests of the witness and defendant were inseparable. They were partners as carriers, and the joint funds would be decreased by an execution against either: so that the witness had an interest paramount to the release; the words of which too, are scarcely comprehensive enough to include his responsibility even to the defendant.

Judgment affirmed,