Case ID: brightly_1/html/0439-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Graham v. Eichbaum.
    [September, 1844.]
    On the trial of an issue on a plea in abatement by N. sued alone, on a note signed “N. & W.,” for the non-joinder of W.; the said W. is not a competent witness for N., although released by him from all costs or damages growing out of the suit.
    The narr. set forth that the defendant, N. Graham, made said note, “by the name of N. & W. Graham.”
    The defendant pleaded in abatement the non-joinder of W. Graham. The plaintiff replied, that defendant was solely liable. Issue, &c.
    On the trial, the plaintiff proved the execution of the note by the defendant, and its endorsement to the plaintiff. He also proved the publication by the defendant, in a newspaper, of a notice stating that at the time of giving said note, there was no such firm in existence as N. & W. Graham.
    The defendant offered the said W. Graham as a witness; who was objected to by the plaintiff as interested, because, upon a judgment in this case, if it is a partnership debt, the partnership goods might be seized. The defendant then executed a release to the witness “ from all liability for costs or damages growing out of” this suit, and again offered him as a witness. The plaintiff still objected to him as incompetent. The court sustained the objection— excluded the witness, and, at defendant’s request, sealed a bill of exceptions.
    
      The only error assigned was, the rejection of W. Graham as a witness.
    
      Patterson, for plaintiff in error,
    cited 1 Stark. Ev. part 4, p. 1084; 2 Stark. Ev. 414, 3d Am. ed.; 4 Maull & Selwyn, 475; 4 Taunt. 752; 3 Cowen, 84.
    
      Veech, contra,
    referred to Taylor v. Henderson, 17 S. & R. 453, 456; Black v. Marvin, 2 Penn. Rep. 138; M‘Coy v. Lightner, 2 W. 347, 351; Carter v. Connell et al. 1 Wh. 392, 398.
   Per Curiam.

— Judgment affirmed. 
      
      
         See 1 Greenl. Ev. § 395, and cases there cited, sustaining the point decided in this case.