Aston v. Jemison

Supreme Court of Alabama

Aston v. Jemison

17 Ala. 61

DecidedJune 15, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Ala. 61 (Aston v. Jemison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aston v. Jemison, 17 Ala. 61 (Ala. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

CHILTON, J.

If the plaintiff succeed in his action against ■Jemison, as part owner of the steamboat Gen’l Sumter, the ■effect of the judgment is to make him responsible for the whole demand and to 'turn him round upon the other part owners for contribution. The-object, as well as the direct tendency of the testimony of the witness, Massey, was to make the defendant share with him the payment of the demand sued for. He was then directly interested in sustaining the plaintiff’s action, as he thereby lessened his own liability in the proportion as he established Jemison’s interest in the boat. It follows, that being an interested witness, he was incompetent to testify, and was properly rejected by the court. — See Ripley v. Thompson et al., 12 Moore, 55; S. C. 22 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433; Lewis v. Post & Main, 1 Ala. Rep. 65; Macbrain v. Fortune, 3 Camp. Rep. 317; Brown v. Brown, 4 Taunt. 752; Thornton v. Kerr & Hope, 6 Ala. Rep. 823.

The judgment of the County Court must be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CHILTON, J.

If the plaintiff succeed in his action against ■Jemison, as part owner of the steamboat Gen’l Sumter, the ■effect of the judgment is to make him responsible for the whole demand and to 'turn him round upon the other part owners for contribution. The-object, as well as the direct tendency of the testimony of the witness, Massey, was to make the defendant share with him the payment of the demand sued for. He was then directly interested in sustaining the plaintiff’s action, as he thereby lessened his own liability in the proportion as he established Jemison’s interest in the boat. It follows, that being an interested witness, he was incompetent to testify, and was properly rejected by the court. — See Ripley v. Thompson et al., 12 Moore, 55; S. C. 22 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433; Lewis v. Post & Main, 1 Ala. Rep. 65; Macbrain v. Fortune, 3 Camp. Rep. 317; Brown v. Brown, 4 Taunt. 752; Thornton v. Kerr & Hope, 6 Ala. Rep. 823.

The judgment of the County Court must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Ala. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aston-v-jemison-ala-1849.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack