Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_18/html/0413-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

REMOTE CONNECTION OF WITNESS WITH CASE.
    Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.
    Frederick W. Mathews et al v. George B. Mackey et al.
    Decided, November 28, 1910.
    
      Evidence—Competency of Witness.
    
    One who is not a necessary party to a case can not be excluded as a witness on the ground that the party objecting claims under a deceased former owner.
    
      Carpenter, Young ,(& Stoeher, for plaintiff.
    
      Thompson & Eine and Eorr <& Lowenthal, contra.
    Winch, J.; PIenry, J., and Marvin, J., concur.
   The petition in this case is dismissed and an injunction refused for the reasons stated by Judge Babcock when deciding the case made before him.

The only additional matter for consideration in this court is the competency of certain testimony given by Frank Cadwell, who appears as a defendant in the case.

The evidence shows that he is not a necessary party to the action. His wife, upon the happening of a certain contingency, might become the owner of the premises in dispute and he then become clothed with an inchoate right of dower therein, but such remote connection with the matter is insufficient to require his appearance as a party in the case.

It is true that plaintiffs claim under a deceased former owner, but they can not exclude witnesses at will by the convenient procedure of making them parties.