Ferguson v. Wallace

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Ferguson v. Wallace

1 Ky. Op. 595, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 355

DecidedJune 17, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ky. Op. 595 (Ferguson v. Wallace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferguson v. Wallace, 1 Ky. Op. 595, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 355 (Ky. Ct. App. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Bobertson :

The evidence of the declarations of Hart, concerning the ownership of the corn while it remained in his possession, was competent on well established principles, and the objection to the admission of this evidence was, therefore, properly overruled.

We think, also, the objection to the ruling of the court in allowing the plaintiff, E. B. Wallace, to testify in relation to the matters, as to which the appellant had been examined by his own counsel, was rightly overruled. The appellant was asked on his examination by the appellees to state if he did not buy corn from plaintiffs before Christmas, 1865. It was not responsive to this inquiry for the defendant to prove in his own behalf that he got the corn in controversy from the agent of Hart, under the arrangement alleged in his answer, and as he thus availed himself of the opportunity to testify in support of his own defense the plaintiffs had a right also to testify concerning the same matter according to section 673 of the Civil Code.

It seems to us the evidence which was legitimately before the court sustained the judgment, and the court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Bobertson :

The evidence of the declarations of Hart, concerning the ownership of the corn while it remained in his possession, was competent on well established principles, and the objection to the admission of this evidence was, therefore, properly overruled.

We think, also, the objection to the ruling of the court in allowing the plaintiff, E. B. Wallace, to testify in relation to the matters, as to which the appellant had been examined by his own counsel, was rightly overruled. The appellant was asked on his examination by the appellees to state if he did not buy corn from plaintiffs before Christmas, 1865. It was not responsive to this inquiry for the defendant to prove in his own behalf that he got the corn in controversy from the agent of Hart, under the arrangement alleged in his answer, and as he thus availed himself of the opportunity to testify in support of his own defense the plaintiffs had a right also to testify concerning the same matter according to section 673 of the Civil Code.

It seems to us the evidence which was legitimately before the court sustained the judgment, and the court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ky. Op. 595, 1867 Ky. LEXIS 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-wallace-kyctapp-1867.