Harris v. Fletcher
Opinion of the Court
There may be cases where a grantor, with warranty, is a competent witness for his grantee, to sustain his, title. There is nothing in the policy of the law to ex-
But in the present case the claim of the plaintiff was in direct conflict with the title the witness had conveyed, or attempted to convey, to the defendant. Both parties derived their title from Lovell. Hills had conveyed to the tenant, by metes and bounds, and covenanted to warrant. The question was, in effect, whether he had not conveyed beyond the line to which he had a valid title, and he was an incompetent witness to support the title he had thus warranted. 2 Johns. R. 394, Jackson vs. Hallenback ; 6 Johns. R. 523, 538, Swift vs. Dean; 3 Wendell 180, Jackson vs. Rice; 6 Green. R. 416, Hale vs. Smith; 4. Esp. R. 164, Smith vs. Chambers; 3 Stark. Ev. 1646; 6 Johns. R. 5, Heermance vs. Vernoy.
He had either a direct interest in the suit; or an interest in the record, which might be used, to some extent, against him in an action on his covenant of warranty. It is somewhat questionable to which class the interest in this case belongs, but the consideration of that matter may be waived.
Judgment on the verdict.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.