Case ID: dc_2/html/0422-02.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

Samuel Burch et al., Administrators of Dougherty, v. R. Spaulding, Administrator of Electius Spaulding.
    It is no disqualification of the plaintiff’s witness, that he is a surety in the plaintiff’s administration-bond.
    
      Bank-cheeks, drawn by tlio plaintiff, payable to bearer, and paid by the bank, are not, of themselves, evidence of money paid to the defendant.
    This was an action to recover money overpaid by the plaintiffs’ intestate, who was clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States, to the defendant’s intestate, who was one of the officers of the House.
    The plaintiffs offered to examine Benjamin Burch as a witness.
    The defendant objected that he was interested, being one of the sureties of the plaintiffs in their administration-bond, and also a surety in Dougherty’s official bond as clerk of the House, so that whatever the plaintiffs would recover in this action would increase the assets of his estate, which was largely indebted to the United States.
   But

the Court

(Morsell, J., absent,)

overruled the objection.

The plaintiff offered in evidence, sundry cheeks drawn by Dougherty, as clerk of the House, in favor of Spaulding, or bearer, which were paid by the bank, and charged to Dougherty in his account with the bank.

But the Court

(Thruston, J., contra,)

decided that the checks were not evidence to the jury of payments of money to Spauld-ing.

Motion for new trial overruled at December term, 1824.