Case Name: Jacob Smith vs. Lewis Asbill
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1846-05
Citations: 2 Rich. 546
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob Smith vs. Lewis Asbill.
Judges: Richardson, O’Neall, Wardlaw and Fhost, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
Jacob Smith vs. Lewis Asbill.
Trespass to try titles. Tlie laud in dispute was granted to one Thomas Adams.. The plaintiff claimed under a conveyance from one who was called Sandhill Thomas Adams. The defendant contended that the true grantee was Edgefield Thomas Adams, who was dead. Held, that a brother of Edgefield Thomas Adams, who, asoné of his heirs at law, was entitled to a portion of the land, was a competent witness for the defendant to prove that he, Edgefield Thomas Adams, was the true grantee.
A witness is not incompetent, unless he has a direct interest in the result of the suit, or an interest in the verdict as an instrument of evidence.
Before O’Neall, J. at Edgefield, July, Extra Term, 1845.
This was an action of trespass to try titles., The plaintiff had a verdict, and the defendant appealed, and now moved for a new trial.
Griffin and Bauskett, for the motion.
Wardlaw and Carroll, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, 'per Evans, J.
The question involved arose thus: the land in dispute was granted to one Thomas Adams. The plaintiff claimed under a conveyance from one who was called in the report Sandhill Thomas Adams. The defendant contended that the true grantee was Edge-field Thomas Adams, and this was one of the leading questions of the case. On this point, one William Adams, a brother of Edgefield Thomas Adams, had been examined ty the defendant. ' It appeared, from his examination, probable that his brother Thomas died without legitimate children, and as a consequeuce of this, if he was the grantee's brother, then he, with others as tenants in common, was the real owner of the land. From this fact, it was supposed he had an interest in defeating the plaintiff's title, and his evidence was rejected.
The rule on the subject of interest seems to be, that the witness is not incompetent unless he has a direct interest in the result of the suit, or an interest in the ver- diet, as an instrument of evidence. In this case, neither party claim under him, or would be estopped by the verdict to dispute the witness' title ; no impediment to its assertion would be created or removed by the verdict, whether for the plaintiff or defendant. As to the result of the trial, he was perfectly indifferent, and therefore competent to give evidence between these parties, A new trial is granted.
Richardson, O'Neall, Wardlaw and Fhost, JJ. concurred.