Call v. Haun
Cases that cite this one
35 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Folsom v. Goodwin (N.H. 1940)
- Burelle v. Pienkofski (N.H. 1929)
- Midland Oil Co. v. Thigpen (8th Cir. 1924)
- Town of Hempstead v. Goldblatt (New York Supreme Court 1959)
- St. Cyr v. Johnson (N.H. 1942)
- People v. Gerus (New York County Courts 1942)
- Cook v. Commellini (Wash. 1938)
- Van Avery v. Platte Valley Land & Investment Co. (Neb. 1937)
- Deutsch v. Max (Pa. 1935)
- Jackson v. Public Service Co. (N.H. 1932)
- First National Bank of Pocatello v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. (Idaho 1925)
- Revell v. Illinois Merchants Trust Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1925)
- Ross v. Haner (Tex. Comm'n App. 1924)
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Chamos (Ky. Ct. App. 1924)
- Marston v. Andler (N.H. 1923)
- Bixby v. Thurber (N.H. 1922)
- Minshall v. Berryhill (Okla. 1921)
- Rowan v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. (N.H. 1920)
- Glory v. Bagby (Okla. 1920)
- Davis v. Revelle (Okla. 1919)
- Gorski v. Consolidated Rendering Co. (R.I. 1918)
- Murphy v. Dee (Mo. Ct. App. 1915)
- Dice's Administrator v. Zweigart's Administrator (Ky. Ct. App. 1914)
- Howard v. Washington Water Power Co. (Wash. 1913)
- Meade v. Montrose (Mo. Ct. App. 1913)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Haun agreed with Call that if he would indemnify him against a note in hank, on which Haun was second, and Call third endorser, he, Haun, would release him, Call, from liability on three notes due from -Beasley and Hargiss to Haun, on which Call was surety. Haun being relieved of his liability as endorser with Call upon the note in bank, refused to comply with his agreement to cancel Call’s suretyship upon the three notes of which he Haun, was payee, but brought suit before a Justice of the peace upon the three notes, and recovered Judgments; which this bill was filed in Chancery to enjoin. The maker of the note in bank was the only witness- to prove the agreement on the part of Haun to release Call from his suretyship on these three notes.
The Court held that he was competent and sufficient without any other, to contradict the denial in the answer, the bill being sworn to.
Decree for relief affirmed.
But now by the act of 1870, ch. 78, sec. 1, no witness is incompetent by reason of interest.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.