Columbus Co. v. Dayton Co.
Columbus Co. v. Dayton Co.
Opinion of the Court
Baldwin, J. concurring.
Upon further examination, we are satisfied that the judgment in this case should be affirmed. The witness Travena was interested in the damages, and his release amounted to nothing more than an assignment of his interest. The fourth section of the Practice Act rendered him incompetent, and his testimony was properly rejected. The evidence in regard to the Eureka title was correctly admitted under the answer. Our former opinion was written under the impression that this title had not been pleaded. The other points made are without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
Note.—-See Grady v. Early, ante 108, where the witness was held competent. In that case, how ever, plaintiff waived damages—though the opinion does not seem to go on that ground. So that the third syllabus in that case may or may not need modifying in this particular.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- COLUMBUS COMPANY v. DAYTON COMPANY
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Where a mining company sues for damages for trespasses committed on their claims during March, April and May, a person who owned an interest in the claims during January, February and March, but had sold out to the company on, the first of April, is not a competent witness for the plaintiffs—even though, when offered, the witness executes an assignment to plaintiffs of his » interest in the damages. Plaintiffs own mining claims called the “ Columbus Claims.” Defendants own claims called the “ Dayton Claims,” on the west of plaintiffs’ claims. The boundary line between the claims is the point of dispute, Plaintiffs aver that defendants are working ground over the line and on plaintiffs’ claims, and bring trespass. Defendants deny—the pleadings being verified—that they are working on plaintiffs’ ground, and claim to own it; they also set up that they are owners of certain claims, known as the “ Eureka Claims,” lying on the east of the Dayton claims. Defendants, on the trial, offered to show that at the time of the alleged trespasses the “ Eureka Company ” owned the ground said to have been trespassed on, and that' defendants had purchased it from the “ Eureka Company ” before this suit: Held, that defendants were entitled to prove their title from the “Eureka Company”—plaintiffs objecting for irrelevancy, and that the title had not been pleaded.