Case ID: mass_30/html/0191-01.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

Thomas R. Plympton versus Chauncy Moore.
    In an action for use and occupation brought by a mortgager, the mortgagee is a competent witness to prove that he entered for condition broken and then leased the land to the defendant, and that the mortgage has been foreclosed.
    Assumpsit for use and occupation of a house and land At the trial, before Wilde J., it appeared that Ralph Plympton mortgaged the premises to David Lincoln in 1826, and that the plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption in May 1827, from which time he claimed rent of the defendant. Lincoln being called as a witness by the defendant, though objected to as incompetent on the ground of interest, testified that in November 1826 he entered upon the premises for condition broken, and that he let the same to the defendant, and that the mortgage had been foreclosed.
    A verdict having been returned for the defendant, Bemis now insisted on the objection taken to the competency of the witness; 2 Stark Ev. 745, 751.
    
      Hoar for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The witness had no interest in the event of the suit, and was properly admitted to testify. At most it can be considered only as an interest in the question, which will go to his credit and not to his competency. A recovery in this action by the plaintiff would be no bar to an action by the witness against the defendant; nor would a verdict for the defendant in this suit be evidence for the witness in any suit which he might bring for this rent. He has, therefore, no legal interest in the event of this suit.

Judgment according to verdict.