Case ID: miss_12/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Tinnin, et al. vs. Lewis M. Garrett.
    A party is not bound to adopt any particular order, in the introduction of his testimony.
    To an action on a bond, with conditions, payment was plead ; and the defendant asked a witness “ if the plaintiff had not sold him (the defendant) some property, and for how much, and how much had been paid 1 ” Which question the court refused permission to the witness to answer ; Held, that the question was pertinent, and should have been answered.
    It is competent for a party to prove the payment of a hond by parol.
    In error, from the Madison circuit court.
    This was an action of debt, on a bond, in the penalty of $20,000, with conditions, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiifs in error.
    Neither the bond nor conditions are set out in the record.
    Yarious errors are assigned; the one upon which the case was decided, is the only one it is deemed necessary to notice.
    That was the refusal of the court below to permit Phineas M. Garrett, a witness on the part of the defendants, to answer the following question, propounded by the defendants’ counsel, to wit: “Do you know, whether the plaintiff in this suit sold to the defendants a tract of land, and some negroes; and if so, how much was the price given for the land and negroes ? How much had been paid upon the said purchase ? ”
    
      Robert Hughes, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      L. M. Garrett, in proper person.
    From bill of exceptions it appears, that the defendants, on the trial in the court below, introduced a witness, and asked him if he knew, whether the plaintiff below “ sold to the defendants a tract of land and some negroes: and if so, how much was the price given for the land and negroes 1 how much had been paid upon said purchase % ” &c. . The counsel for the plaintiff below objected to the question, and the objection was sustained by the court. This is assigned as error. Now the point which, from these bills of exceptions, the defendants below were endeavoring to establish, by procuring an answer to this question, was, that they had paid and discharged the bond sued on. But no answer, which the witness could properly have given, whether in the affirmative or negative, could have conduced to such an end. A dozen plantations might have been sold to the defendants below by the plaintiff, and the witness might have answered, that all of these had been paid for in full; and yet such an answer would not have amounted to proof, that the bond sued on had been paid. To constitute error, in ruling out testimony, its relevancy must appear. 2 How. 503. 4 How. 506.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant in error brought this action on a bond, with condition. The defendants pleaded payment, and the plaintiff took issue, and assigned breaches in his replication. Although oyer was craved, the bond and condition are not set out, and we cannot, therefore, know whether the breaches are well assigned or not. No further notice was taken of them, and the trial was had on the plea of payment.

The question presented by the first bill of exceptions, is the only one we deem it necessary to notice.

The defendants called a witness, and asked him this question, Do you know whether the plaintiff in this suit sold to the defendant a tract of land and some negroes, and if so, how much was the price given for the land and negroes'? how much has been paid upon said purchase ? ” The witness was not permitted to answer, in, which we think the court erred. A party is not bound to adopt any particular order, in the introduction of his testimony. The answer to this question might have shown, that such purchase had been made, and that the whole amount of the purchase money had been paid. Another question, to the same or another witness, might have shown that the bond sued on was given for the amount, or to secure the payment of the purchase money. Or the answer to this question might have furnished the ground for a presumption, that this transaction grew out of the sale of the land. It is competent for a party to prove the payment of a bond by parol, and the question propounded seems pertinent, both to establish the identity of the transaction, and the payment of the money agreed to be paid.

We need not notice the objections taken to the judgment, as for the error above-mentioned it must be reversed, and the cause remanded.