Paterson v. Schenck
Paterson v. Schenck
Opinion of the Court
The action was brought on a promissory note, purporting to have been given by Paterson, the defendant below, and to which, the Justice before whom this action was brought, was a subscribing witness, and the only one. It appears by the transcript that one Peter Kline, was examined as a witness on the part of the plaintiff, and upon his testimony, the .Justice gave judgment against the defendant.
It is a settled rule of law, that if there is a subscribing witness to an instrument, he must be produced and sworn, unless his absence is accounted for by some fact, which the law deems sufficient to excuse the non-production of the witness. Hoagland v. Sebring, 4 South. R. 105; Williams v. Davis, Penn. R. Harr. ed. 201; Phil. evid. 356 and seq. Or unless the subscribing witness, has become the husband or wife, or the executor or administrator of one of the parties ; or the owner of the instrument; or otherwise interested in the event of the suit. Godfrey v. Norris, 1 Str. 34; Goss v. Tracy, 1 Pr. Wms. 287,9; Swire v. Bell, 5 T. R; Phil. evid. 362. It is suggested however, that inasmuch as the Justice could not administer an oath to himself, Outcalt v. Ramkin, 2 Green's R. 33; the case comes within the principle of those cases, in which the testimony of the subscribing witness is dispensed with. But this is a mistake. The subscribing witness in this case, was not disqualified by interest, or any other cause from being a witness. He was a lawful and competent witness.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- PATERSON v. SCHENCK
- Status
- Published