Case ID: va_6/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Cur.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walthall v. Johnston.
    [April Term, 1800.]
    Evidence — Admissibility—Declarations by Mortgagee. —Declarations by the mortgagee, under whom the defendant claims that the mortgage was paid off. are admissible evidence on the part of the plaintiff.
    Johnston brought detinue for'a slave by the name of James against Walthall in the District Court. Plea non detinet; and issue. Upon the trial of the cause the defendant filed a bill of exceptions stating, that “It was objected by the attorney for the defendant, that a declaration made by Kllender Willis under whom the defendant claims, after the negro in the writing annexed mentioned, had been sent by her to be sold to the defendant, that nothing was due thereon, should not go to the jury as evidence to prove, that nothing was due under the defeazance thereon indorsed; but the court considered it, as admissible, though not conclusive evidence.”
    The writing referred to, is in form a bill of sale, from Bough to the said Kllender Willis for the negro James; but there is an indorsement on it signed by the said Ellen-der Willis, which states, that Bough shall have the negro at any time on or before the 1st of September 1793, by paying *what is and shall appear justly due to the , said Kllender Willis; This indorsement bears the same date with the bill of sale.
    Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; whereupon Walthall appealed to this court.
    Randolph for the appellant.
    Contended that the witness was interested; and therefore that the judgment of the District Court was erroneous.
   Per Cur.

There was nothing improper in submitting the evidence to the jury: But it might have been otherwise, if it had been gaming, usury or any other thing of that nature, which was to have been proved.

Judgment Affirmed.