Charlotte v. Soutter

28 F. 733, 24 Blatchf. 150, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346

This text of 28 F. 733 (Charlotte v. Soutter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charlotte v. Soutter, 28 F. 733, 24 Blatchf. 150, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346 (circtsdny 1886).

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

This canse lias now been beard upon a motion to exclude the testimony of one of the executors upon the accounting heretofore decreed to settle the amount of the estate in the hands of the executors, oue-twentioth part of which is decreed, when ascertained, to the oratrix. The testimony is sought to be excluded under section 858, Bov. St. which provides that, in actions by or against executors, administrators, or guardians, in which judgment may be rendered for or against them, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other as to any transaction with or statement by the testator, intestate or. ward, with certain qualifications not here material. The testimony offered is as to a transaction between the testator and the executor offering himself as a witness. No judgment can be rendered in this action upon that transaction, however. The inquiry is incidental to taking the account, and not upon an issue which is the subject of a decree. Therefore the testimony does not appear to come [734]*734within the statute. Monongahela Bank v. Jacobus, 109 U. S. 275; S. C. 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 219.

Motion to exclude testimony denied.

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

Related

Monongahela National Bank v. Jacobus
109 U.S. 275 (Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 F. 733, 24 Blatchf. 150, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charlotte-v-soutter-circtsdny-1886.