Case Name: S. Mumford, plaintiff in error, vs. James F. King, executor, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1872-07
Citations: 46 Ga. 414
Docket Number: 
Parties: S. Mumford, plaintiff in error, vs. James F. King, executor, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 414–415

Head Matter:
S. Mumford, plaintiff in error, vs. James F. King, executor, defendant in error.
A plaintiff is a competent witness to prove the payment of taxes on the debt sued on, though the other party to the contract may be dead. (R.)
Evidence. Relief Act of 1870. Party as witness. Before Judge Sessions. Wayne Superior Court. April Term, 1872.
For the facts of this case, see the decision.
John D. Rumph, by brief, for plaintiff in error.
The plaintiff was a competent witness: Act of October 13,1870; 37 Ga. R., 586, 623, 650.
J. S. Wiggin; J. C. Nichols, represented by Newman & Harrison, for defendant.

Opinion:
Warner, Chief Justice.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant as executor on an open account. The plaintiff had filed an affidavit of the payment of taxes, as required by the Act of 1870. On the trial of the case, the plaintiff offered to prove the payment of the taxes for the purpose of keeping, his suit in Court, as required by the provisions of the before recited Act. The defendant objected to his doing so, on the ground that his testator, one of the original parties to the contract sued on, was dead. The Court sustained the the objection and rejected the evidence; whereupon, the plaintiff excepted. In our judgment, the Court erred in rejecting the evidence of the plaintiff as to the payment of taxes on the debt. The plaintiff was not offered to prove anything in relation to the contract or cause of action in issue or on trial, but was simply offered to prove a fact required by the Act of 1870, to keep his case in Court — a matter outside of, and wholly independent of any contract made with the tes tator, or the merits of the cause of action in issue or on trial between the parties. The evidence offered was to prove a condition precedent, required by the Act of 1870, to enable the plaintiff to maintain his suit in Court.
Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.