Case ID: mass_23/html/0421-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Leavenworth versus Ebenezer Pope.
    Sept. 10th
    The principal debtor is not liable for the costs of an action brought by a surety against a co-surety for contribution, and consequently is not disqualified to be a witness in such action.
    This was an action brought by a surety against his co-surety for contribution. The principal debtor was offered by toe defendant, as a witness to prove an arrangement and settlement between the sureties, but was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground of interest. Putnam J. sustained the objection, considering the principal to be interested to the extent of the costs which might be recovered by the plaintiff in case he prevailed. If the witness was improperly excluded, a new trial was to be granted.
    
      Whiting and Bishop, for the defendant,
    cited Ilderton v. Atkinson, 7 T. R. 480; Birt v. Kershaw, 2 East, 458.
    
      Porter and Briggs, for the plaintiff,
    cited Townend v. Downing, 14 East, 565; French v. Foulstone, 5 Burr. 2727 • Hayden v. Cabot, 17 Mass. R. 169.
   Per Curiam.

If the principal was not liable for costs, the objection to his competency fails ; and we are all of opinion that he was not so liable. He has no concern in the controversies of sureties between themselves.

New trial granted.