Chisholm v. Turner

Supreme Court of Georgia

Chisholm v. Turner

36 Ga. 565

DecidedDecember 15, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 36 Ga. 565 (Chisholm v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chisholm v. Turner, 36 Ga. 565 (Ga. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Walker, J.

Since the Act of 15th December, 1866, pamphlet p. 138, Eev. Code, Sec. 3798, no person is incompetent as a witness on account of crime, interest, or being a party; except where one of the original parties to the contract or cause of action in issue, and on trial is dead, or insane; or where a representative is a party in any suit on a contract of his testator or intestate, “the other party shall not be admitted to testify in his own favor.” The interest of Adair was no ground for his exclusion; his being a party did not exclude him; on what ground, then, was he excluded ? Turner, “the other party,” was not dead; why, then, was not Adair competent ? We see nothing in the statute to exclude him, and the rejection of his testimony, therefore, ivas error, for which a new trial must be granted.

Judgment reversed.

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

Walker, J.

Since the Act of 15th December, 1866, pamphlet p. 138, Eev. Code, Sec. 3798, no person is incompetent as a witness on account of crime, interest, or being a party; except where one of the original parties to the contract or cause of action in issue, and on trial is dead, or insane; or where a representative is a party in any suit on a contract of his testator or intestate, “the other party shall not be admitted to testify in his own favor.” The interest of Adair was no ground for his exclusion; his being a party did not exclude him; on what ground, then, was he excluded ? Turner, “the other party,” was not dead; why, then, was not Adair competent ? We see nothing in the statute to exclude him, and the rejection of his testimony, therefore, ivas error, for which a new trial must be granted.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Ga. 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chisholm-v-turner-ga-1867.