Hicks v. Whitesides
Hicks v. Whitesides
Opinion of the Court
Cope, J. concurring.
We think that the witness, A. R. Whitesides, was not incompetent for the defendant. The fact that he was interested with the defendant in farming within the “ Old Field ”—a part of the eighty acres sued for—did not make him interested in the result of the litigation outside of that field, in respect to which he had no interest. We do not see how the verdict and judgment could affect him—his proffered testimony not going to the general title, or the title to or right of possession of the field, but to the piece of ground outside of it. It is as if two distinct parcels of ground had been sued for, in only one of which the witness was interested; but that interest would not disqualify him from testifying as to the other.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- HICKS v. WHITESIDES
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Ejectment for a quarter section of land. Defendant disclaimed as to all except the north half of the section, eighty acres, within which he had thirty acres enclosed and called the “ Old Eield.” Defendant offered his brother A. B. Whitesides as a witness to prove defendant’s prior possession of that part of the north half of the section outside of the “ Old Eield.” Witness on his voir dire said he lived with defendant, was interested in the crops which were in the “ Old Eield ” only, and had no interest whatever in the balance of the land: Reid, that the witness was competent; that his being interested in farming within the “ Old Eield,” did not make him interested in the result of the litigation as to the land outside of that field.