Connecticut Superior Court, 1786

Punderson v. Shaw

Punderson v. Shaw
Connecticut Superior Court · Decided September 15, 1786 · Dyer
1 Kirby 150

Counsel

■Mr. Wait, for tbe defendant,

Punderson v. Shaw

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

A mistake in a former settlement canuot be admitted as a legal charge on book: Tbe party affected by it must have bis remedy by another kind of action. Tbe statute wbicb permits interested persons to testify in the action of book debt, is not peremptory. There may be many exceptions wherein be shall be excluded bis testimony. And wherever there appears a settlement under band, tbe court will never admit tbe parties to go over it; for it wordd open a door for great uncertainty and injustice. In tbe late case of Waldron, wbicb was an action of book debt, tbe question was, whether tbe parties might go beyond a former settlement, and it was adjudged they should not.

Dissenting Opinion

Dyer, J.,

dissenting. This is an action of book debt, and tbe general issue is pleaded; tbe cause, therefore, lies *151open for an inquiry at large. Tbe law admits tbe parties to testify in tbis kind of action, and if their testimony is confronted by any other kind of evidence, tbe court will duly weigh it. There may happen very many instances, where there is the same necessary for the admission of the party’s oath, to support a charge like this, as there could have been to support the original charge, and consequently the same reason.

The defendant, by not pleading in bar, has waived all benefit by this objection: A former judgment, or a settlement, is undoubtedly good matter of bar; but if the party will not plead it specially, he can take no advantage of it; therefore, the testimony of the plaintiff in this case is admissible.

The plaintiff then offered other disinterested witnesses, to prove the same fact; but they were refused by the court, because the article was not supportable as a charge on book.

Dissenting Opinion

Dyer, J.,

dissenting. The article charged, and now contended for, is admitted to have been a good charge on book, and in that way recoverable, if the settlement referred to does not conclude the plaintiff.

Note.- — ■ In this case the plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions, and carried the case to the Supreme Court of Errors; and there the judgment was affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.