Byrne v. McDonald
Byrne v. McDonald
Opinion of the Court
The testimony of the defendant was rightly rejected. The payee of the note was dead. He was one of the original parties to the contract or cause of action in issue and on trial. By the express terms of the proviso in St. 1857, c. 305, § 1, the other party to the contract cannot in such case be admitted to testify in his own favor. The defendant, being the promisor of the note declared on, was clearly within the exact letter of the statute. Little v. Little, 13 Gray, 266. But it is equally clear that the plaintiff was a competent witness. He was a party to the suit, and, as such, admissible under the general rule established by the statute, unless he came within the exception contained in the proviso. But that was not applicable to him, because he was not an original party to the contract. He became a party to the note by the subsequent contract of indorsement with the payee after it had become a complete and perfect contract between the promisor and payee, who were, in the sense of the statute, the original parties. The provision in St. 1859, c. 230, § 2, was probably designed to meet a very different case from the present. It is not expressed in very intelligible terms; but we understand its main purpose was to render
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Richard Byrne v. John McDonald
- Status
- Published