Case ID: me_30/html/0223-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Shepley, C. J. orally.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Dennett versus William P. Lamson & al.
    
    The interest of a witness is not removed by a receipt, unsealed, in full of all demands made by the party calling him.
    Exceptions from the District Court.
    Trover for a yoke of oxen. The ownership was in dispute. The defendants had purchased them of one H. Clapp, and they called him as a witness. Being objected to on the ground of interest, he received from the defendants’ attorney a document of the following tenor: — “ Dover, March 29, 1849.— Received of H. Clapp one dollar in full of all demands. Lam-son & Wyman, by their attorney, A. Sanborn.” It was admitted that Sanborn was verbally authorized by the defendants to make and sign such a paper. The witness was admitted.
    
      Everett, for plaintiff.
    
      A. Sanborn, for defendants.
    The receipt was a discharge of all remedy which the defendants might have had upon the witness. A release of all demands is a discharge of all actions and causes of action, even of conditions not yet broken, or before an action could be brought therefor. Coke on Litt. Book 3, sect. 508. If a release would have such an effect, why not a receipt ? A receipt is presumptive evidence of consideration. And an acknowledgment by deed of a consideration, is but prima facie evidence, and may be controlled. 1 Greenl. Ev. <§. 26, and cases cited.
    A valuable consideration is not requisite. Consideration of good-will is sufficient.
   Shepley, C. J. orally.

— The witness was interested. The attempt to remove his interest was ineffectual. The paper was not a release. It was not sealed. It was open and subject lo explanation. Exceptions sustained.