Case Name: Wise v. Wilcox
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1802
Citations: 1 Day 22
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wise v. Wilcox.
Judges: 
Reporter: Day's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 22–23

Head Matter:
Wise v. Wilcox.
1802.
In the Court below,
Sytvanus Wilcox, Plaintiff; Samuel P. Wise and Enos G. Nettleton, Defendants,
In an action by A. against B. for falsely and deceitfully affirming C. to be a man of property, by which A. was induced to trust C. and take his note, C. is a competent witness for A. to prove the facts, tho’ the note be unpaid.
ACTION on the case, charging the defendants with fraudulently and deceitfully affirming to the plaintiff, that one Hawley, who was then negotiating a bargain with the plaintiff for a horse, was a man of property and responsibility, whereas they knew him to be a bankrupt ; that the plaintiff sold the horse, and took Hawley's note for the same, in consequence of their false affirmations ; that they shared the property among them; that the note had never been paid, and that Hawley was utterly unable to pay any part of it, and always had been.
On trial to the jury, on the general issue, Hawley was offered, by the plaintiffs, as a witness to all the facts stated in the declaration. An objection was taken, that he was interested ; for that if he procured a recovery, in this case, the note would be discharged. The Superior Court overruled the objection, and admitted the witness. A bill of exceptions was filed. Verdict for the plaintiff.
On this bill of exceptions this writ of error was brought, The general error was assigned.
Edwards, (pH New-Haveñ) and Smith, (of New-Haven) for the plaintiffs in error,
insisted, that if the plaintiff below recovered his whole damages from the defendants, Hawley's note might be deemed paid, upon the principle, that a person can receive no more than one satisfaction for an injury ; that if the note had been paid, this action could not have been supported ; and, therefore, that the witness offered was directly interested, and* of course, incompetent.
Daggett, for the defendant,
insisted, that a recovery against the defendants below would be no bar to a recovery on the note; that no plea could be formed, to an action on the note which would not be insufficient, having for its basis a recovery against others for a tort; that the contract would still subsist against Hawley; that if Hawley had given no note, and the defendants below had been on trial, he clearly might have testified, yet, in that case, he might be deemed as testifying to procure a judgment to exonerate himself ; that parties in a swindling transaction were constantly admitted as witnesses, and that even participes criminis often were witnesses to procure convictions for the hightest offences ; and that, if there was any objection to the witness, it only went to his credit, and not to his competency.

Opinion:
Iiv the Court,
Seymour, Ast. dissenting,
The judgment was affirmed.