Case ID: la-ann_5/html/0183-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rost, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wm. McCraw, Curator, v. Tomkins and Larche.
    The payee of a note is a good witness for holder against the drawers, where the defence is payment.
    
      Waters and Petrovich v. Blanchard, 19 L. K,. 584, affirmed.
    APPEAL from the District Court of Carroll, Selby, J. This was an action by the holder against the drawers of a note, to which the defendants pleaded payment. The plaintiff introduced the payee, Gory Hood, as a witness upon this issue. The testimony was objected to, and a bill of exceptions taken to its reception, upon the ground of the witness being interested.
    
      J. B. Bemiss, for plaintiff.
    
      Short and Parham, for defendants,
    contended : The petition alleges that the witness assigned the note after it was due. If he did, it was paid, and he stood as the guarantor of the existence of the debt. Why should he be permitted to swear a debt into existence that had no existence, against Tompkins, who had paid it?
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Rost, J.

This case is not in a situation that will enable us to pass finally upon it. Some of the witnesses examined have not told the whole truth, and have evaded answering questions which must be within their knowledge. The reasonable expectation that full answers would be made, may have induced the defendant not to procure evidence to trace the note to the possession of the original holder, and thus to show whether it was the one held by the Messrs. Wilson. The truth can, no doubt, be elicited in another trial; and we must have it.

To facilitate the proceedings, we will now pass upon the bill of exceptions of the defendant. We are of opinion that, under the pleadings, Govy Hood has no interest in the controversy, and that he is therefore a competent witness. We adhere to the decision in the case of Waters and Petrovich v. Blanchard, 19 L. R. 584.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment in this case be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings according to law; the plaintiff and appellee paying the costs of this appeal.