Case Name: Bradish & Goodenough v. Perley Belknap
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1873-08
Citations: 46 Vt. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bradish & Goodenough v. Perley Belknap.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
Bradish & Goodenough v. Perley Belknap.
Competency of Witness under ch. 36, §24, of the Gien. Sts.
Where a contract with a firm was originally mado with a member thereof since deceased, it was held, that the other party thereto was a competent witness in his own behalf in a suit thereon against the surviving partner.
The case of Dawson, admr. v: Wait, 41 Vt. 626, approved.
Book Account. The plaintiffs’ account was for 736 feet of pine boards, at four cents per foot, which they claimed to have sold and delivered to the firm of Belknap & Edson, of which the defendant Belknap was surviving partner, and that the contract of sale was made with the said Edson by the plaintiff Bradish. There was no testimony tending to show that Belknap knew anything about said sale, or that the firm of Belknap & Edson ever had said lumber. The plaintiffs offered said Bradish as a witness to prove the contract of sale with said Edson. The defendant objected, .because the said Edson was deceased; liut the auditor overruled the objection, and admitted the testimony; and found for the plaintiffs to recover their account, subject to the opinion of the court as to the competency of the said Bradish.
The court, at the March term, 1873, Peck, J., presiding, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs according to the report, to which the defendant excepted.
Creo. M. Fisk, for the defendant,
cited Gen. Sts. § 24, ch. 36 ;' Hollister, admr. v. Young, 41 Yt. 156; Hunter v. Kit‘tredgds Estate, lb. 359; Hollister, admr. v. Young, 42 Yt. 403 ; Merrill, admr. v. Finney, 43 Yt. 605.
H. W. Heaton, for the plaintiffs,
cited Dawson, admr. v. Waite, 41 Yt. 626 ; Hayward v. French, 12 Gray, 453 ; Brady v. Brady, 8 Allen, 101; Gross v. Austin, 11 lb. 525.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.
The only practical purpose to be served by reporting this case, is to remind the profession that the question involved was considered, discussed, and decided in Dawson, admr. v. Waite, 41 Vt. 626. The court still entertain the same view of the subject.
Judgment affirmed.