Baker v. Bancroft

54 A. 563, 69 N.J.L. 223, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 188
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 24, 1903
StatusPublished

This text of 54 A. 563 (Baker v. Bancroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baker v. Bancroft, 54 A. 563, 69 N.J.L. 223, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 188 (N.J. 1903).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sues to recover for services rendered by helas nurse to the defendant’s testator. She was sworn as a witness in her own behalf, and was permitted to testify, against objection, to various services rendered by her to him, made necessary by his illness. The proviso contained in the fourth section of the Evidence act, as revised in 1900 {Pamph. L.j p. 363), makes illegal testimony given by any party to an action as to any transactions with, or statements by, any testator or intestate represented in such action, except upon conditions which were not present in this ease. That services rendered by the plaintiff as nurse to the testator of the defendant are transactions with such testator, within the meaning of this statutory provision, was decided by this court in the case of Dickerson v. Payne, 37 Vroom 35. The admission of this testimony was harmful error.

The rule to show cause should be made absolute.

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

Related

Dickerson v. Payne
48 A. 528 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A. 563, 69 N.J.L. 223, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-bancroft-nj-1903.