Holmes v. Brooks
Holmes v. Brooks
Opinion of the Court
This is an action upon a promissory note, given by the firm of O. M. & E. P. Brooks to the plaintiff’s intestate. It is brought against the defendant as surviving partner. The defendant, as such partner, gave the bond required by It. S., c. 69, § 2.
The judge of the superior court ruled that the defendant was not competent as a witness generally, as to facts happening before the decease of the plaintiff’s intestate, the plaintiff not having testified thereto. The defendant excepted to this ruling, on the ground that, as a party, he was the “legal representative of a deceased person,” to wit, his partner, and, as such, was entitled to testify to facts happening before his decease, within the provisions of N. S., c. 82, § 87, and c. 145 of the acts of 1873.
The ruling was correct. The defendant is sued in his own
The plaintiff was appointed administrator in Maine on the estate of John Tenney, of Water bury, Vermont, on September 4, 1877, and commenced this suit January 16, 1878. It is brought within two years after his appointment, and is not barred by R. S., e. 81, § 88.
Exceptions overruled.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- George F. Holmes, administrator of John Tenney v. Edward P. Brooks, surviving partner
- Status
- Published