Washing v. . Wright

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Washing v. . Wright, 30 N.C. 1 (N.C. 1847)
Daniel

Washing v. . Wright

Opinion of the Court

Daniel, J.

We are of opinion, that the two cases, cited by the' plaintiff’s counsel, show, that the decision of the Judge was right. Blackett v. Weir (11 Eng, C. L. 257,) establishes, that, where in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, to which the general issue was pleaded, a witness, called by the plaintiff to prove the defendant’s liability, admitted on the voir dire, that he (the witness) was jointly liable as a partner, this did not render him incompetent; for, if the plaintiff recovered, the defendant would have contribution, and, if he failed, he might sue the witness for the whole,, and the latter may then *3 claim contribution from the defendant. Bayley, J. said, the only difficulty arises from his proving a partnership with the defendantbut his (the witness’) testimony would not prove that, in any other action. In Cummins v. Coffin, 7 Ired. 176, it was held, that, in an action against two partners, the plaintiff may introduce the testimony of a third partner, not a party to the record, though he could not be compelled to give his testimony.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Charles Washing v. Edmund Wright.
Status
Published