Case Name: Darius Whithed vs. James M. Wood & another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1870-01
Citations: 103 Mass. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: Darius Whithed vs. James M. Wood & another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
Darius Whithed vs. James M. Wood & another.
aD an action by an indorsee against the maker of a promissoiy note, the payee of which ia dead, the defendant is incompetent to testify in his own favor, under the Gen. Sts. c. 131, 14.
Contract on a promissory note made by James M. Wood, one of the defendants, under date of July 25, 1866, for $>400 payable, with interest, four months from date, to Henry W. Dresser, the other defendant, or his order, and indorsed in blank by Dresser. Writ dated March 15, 1867. Trial, and verdict for the plaintiff, in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions of which the following is the material part:
“ Dresser did not defend the action, but was defaulted at the first term, and died after said first term and before the trial, Wood defended the action, and, being a witness at the trial, called by his counsel, admitted that the signature to the note was his, but offered to prove, by his own testimony, that the words, ‘ with interest,’ were added to the note by Dresser after it was signed and delivered to Dresser and without the consent or knowledge of Wood, and that the note, including the words so added, was in the handwriting of Dresser. To this testimony the plaintiff’s counsel objected, and the judge excluded the evidence and refused to admit the testimony thus offered, and to these rulings Wood excepted.”
G. A. F. Swan, for the plaintiff, was first called upon.
T. Wentworth Sf A. F. Jewett, for Wood.

Opinion:
Gray, J.
The contract in issue and on trial was a promissory note made by Wood to Dresser, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. Dresser, one of the original parties to that contract, was dead, and Wood, the other party, was therefore rightly not permitted to testify in his own favor. Gen. Sts. c. 131, § 14. Byrne v. McDonald, 1 Allen, 293.
The bill of exceptions does not show any waiver of the objection to his competency; for it is at least ambiguous upon the point whether his admission jf his signature was not made as party and not as witness, and the objection taken before he had begun to testify. Exceptions overruled.