Case ID: dc_2/html/0315-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Franklin Bank v. Hipkins & Rochford.
    In a joint action of debt upon a promissory note, if one of tbe defendants suffer judgment to go against him by default and a writ of inquiry be executed, be is not a competent witness, upon the issue joined by the other defendant.
    Debt against Lewis,Hipkins and Bartholomy Rochford upon their joint promissory note.
    Judgment was rendered against Hipkins by default, and a writ of inquiry executed.
    On the trial of the issue against Eochford, his counsel, Mr. Taylor offered to examine Hipkins as a witness for Eochford ; and cited Chapman v. Graves, 2 Camp. 333 ; Ward v. Hayden et al., 2 Esp. Eep. 552.
   The Court

(nem. con.) rejected the witness; because the action being joint, the judgment must be joint; and if, upon the trial of the issue against Eochford the verdict should be in his favor, there can be no judgment against Hipkins.