Case Name: Brant, ex dem. Van Cortlandt and others, against Dyckman
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1800-04
Citations: 1 Johns. Cas. 275
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Brant, ex dem. Van Cortlandt and others, against Dyckman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
*Brant, ex dem. Van Cortlandt and others, against Dyckman.
In an action of ejectment, it was held, that a, person cannot be a witness to. show that he was the tenant in possession, and not the defendant.
This was an action of ejectment, tried before Mr. Justice Benson, at the last July circuit in the county of Westchester.
The plaintiff having proved his title, gave evidence to show the defendant in possession of the premises in question, and there rested his cause/
The defendant insisted, that he was not in possession of the premises at the time when the action was commenced ; and called one Vredenbergh as a witness, to prove that he,. Vredenbergh, at the commencement of the suit, wits; and then still continued to be the paal tenant in possessioryand not the defendant. y’ ’ .
The plaintiff’s counsel objected to his being received as a witness*. because his testimony went to protect his own: possession :
The judge was of that opinion, and refused to permit the-witness to be sworn. "
A motion- was made for a new trial, on the ground that the witness, was competent, and ought to. have been received;

Opinion:
Per Curiam,.
We think that Vredenbergh was not a com-
petent witness, and was properly excluded. If he was in possession, he had an immediate interest to protect that possession, and prevent a recovery, and if he was not, the object of producing him was .improper, and ought not to succeed. Whether this be considered as an interest in the event of the suit, or in the question between the parties merely, it is one of those cases in which the reason and policy of the law ought to exclude a witness. His interest on the question of possession is almost the same as that of the defendant himself, and from the nature of the fact, there can be no inconvenience in requiring other proof, which it must always be in the power of the party to produee.
Rule refused.
It is a general rule that one is incompetent as a witness, to protect his own possession. See per Tompkins, J. in Jackson ex dem. Youngs v. Vredenbergh, 1 Johns. R. 159. Doe ex dem. Foster v. Williams, Cowp. 621. Bourne v. Turner, 1 Str. 632. Doe ex dem. Mackley v. Pye, 1 Esp. 364. Thus, in a case similar to the principal, where a defendant in ejectment set up as a defence, that he was not in possession when the declaration was served, his tenant to whom he had leased the land, was held incompetent as a witness, to establish the fact. Jackson ex dem. Van Den Bergh v. Trusdell, 12 Johns. R. 246. And, where prima facie evidence has been given against the defendant, a witness is incompetent to prove that he himself is the real tenant, and that the defendant is but his bailiff. Doe ex dem. Jones v. Wild, 5 Taunt. 183. Doe ex dem. Lewis v. Bingham, 4 Barn. & Ald. 672. Doe ex dem. Scales v. Bragg, R. & M. 87; Steph. N. P. 1476. And the rule is the same, though the offered witness occupy only a part of the.premises. Jackson ex dem. Church, v. Hills, 8 Cowen, 290. See also Cowen & Hill's Notes to 1 Phill. Ev. 123, 1535.