Innis v. Miller

2 U.S. 50, 2 Dall. 50
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided August 1, 1790·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

The law on this subject has been fully settled in the modern cases, by an accurate discrimination between the competency and the credibility of witnesses. The stream of justice should, however, be preserved clear and uncontaminated and although a creditor is not excluded frogiving testimony, as such; yet if he acknowledges an expedition, that he shall be bettered by the fate of the cause, (as in the case of M'Veaugh v. Goods, which was properly ruled) he is sensible of a positive interest, that must give a biass to his mind. From the answers of the witness, therefore, we must reject his testimony.

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

Innis v. Miller, 2 U.S. 50, 2 Dall. 50 (1790).

2 U.S. 50 (Innis v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commercial Bank v. Hughes
17 Wend. 94 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)
Raymond v. Simonson
4 Blackf. 77 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1835)
Boyer v. Kendall
14 Serg. & Rawle 178 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1826)
Stebbins v. Sackett
5 Conn. 258 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1824)
Long v. Bailie
4 Serg. & Rawle 222 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1818)
McVeaugh v. Goods
1 U.S. 62 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1781)