Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MARY E. ALEXANDER, Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. PHILIP DUTCHER, JR., et al., Appellants.

RAPALLO, J.

I can find no provision, excepting a case like the present, from the operation of section 399 of the Code. That section prohibits all parties to actions from testifying to personal transactions with a deceased person against his executors, etc., and makes no distinction between cases where parties are called as witnesses on their own behalf, or in behalf of a co-defendant, or cases where they are jointly or severally liable. It might have been reasonable to make such distinctions, but we have no authority thus to supplement the act, which is clear and positive in its terms.

The act of 1832 cannot aid the case. It has been superseded by sections 120 and 397 of the Code.

There was no evidence on which the issue of payment could properly have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ALEXANDER v. DUTCHER ET AL
(Sep 18, 1877)