Montgomery & Wetumpka Plank-Road Co. v. Webb

Supreme Court of Alabama

Montgomery & Wetumpka Plank-Road Co. v. Webb

27 Ala. 618

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 15, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 27 Ala. 618 (Montgomery & Wetumpka Plank-Road Co. v. Webb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Montgomery & Wetumpka Plank-Road Co. v. Webb, 27 Ala. 618 (Ala. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The members, or stockholders, in a corporation [620]*620created for private emolument, are not admissible as witnesses for the corporation. — 1 Greenl. Ev. § 333.

. The 5th section of the charter of appellant provides, that the directors “shall'be owners of stock.” — Pamph. Acts of 1849-50, p. 244, § 5. The proof, then, that Joseph S. Winter was a director of appellant in the spring of 1850, unexplained and unconiradicted by any other evidence,, was proof that he was a stockholder.

If this proof had been made by the testimony of Joseph S. Winter'himself, then the other part of his testimony, showing that-at'flJicjjtrial, in the spring of 1853, he had no interest in thehiásalhpf ’this case, should have been considered by the court, and 'held sufficient to admit him as a witness. But, as the proof of his interest was made in another way, and came from a competent source, it is clear that he could not by his own testimony remove the objection to him as an interested witness, nor qualify himself to testify for the appellant.— Herndon v. Givens, 19 Ala. 313.

The plaintiff admitted only, that if Joseph S. Winter was in court, he would swear to the facts as set forth in the affidavit of Moody. This was neither an admission that the facts as therein set forth were true, nor that Joseph S. Winter was a competent witness to testify either to the court or the jury.

There was competent evidence, showing that Joseph S. Winter was a director and stockholder, and therefore interested. There was no competent evidence to the contrary, unless the lapse of time between the spring of 1850 and the spring' of 1853 furnished ground for presuming that he had ceaséd to be a stockholder. This lapse of time did not furnish ground for any such presumption. On the contrary, as he was proved to be a stockholder in the spring of 1850, the presumption is that he continued to be a stockholder at the trial in the spring of 1853. — 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 41, 42 ; Garner v. Elliott, 8 Ala. 96.

Judgment affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

The members, or stockholders, in a corporation [620]*620created for private emolument, are not admissible as witnesses for the corporation. — 1 Greenl. Ev. § 333.

. The 5th section of the charter of appellant provides, that the directors “shall'be owners of stock.” — Pamph. Acts of 1849-50, p. 244, § 5. The proof, then, that Joseph S. Winter was a director of appellant in the spring of 1850, unexplained and unconiradicted by any other evidence,, was proof that he was a stockholder.

If this proof had been made by the testimony of Joseph S. Winter'himself, then the other part of his testimony, showing that-at'flJicjjtrial, in the spring of 1853, he had no interest in thehiásalhpf ’this case, should have been considered by the court, and 'held sufficient to admit him as a witness. But, as the proof of his interest was made in another way, and came from a competent source, it is clear that he could not by his own testimony remove the objection to him as an interested witness, nor qualify himself to testify for the appellant.— Herndon v. Givens, 19 Ala. 313.

The plaintiff admitted only, that if Joseph S. Winter was in court, he would swear to the facts as set forth in the affidavit of Moody. This was neither an admission that the facts as therein set forth were true, nor that Joseph S. Winter was a competent witness to testify either to the court or the jury.

There was competent evidence, showing that Joseph S. Winter was a director and stockholder, and therefore interested. There was no competent evidence to the contrary, unless the lapse of time between the spring of 1850 and the spring' of 1853 furnished ground for presuming that he had ceaséd to be a stockholder. This lapse of time did not furnish ground for any such presumption. On the contrary, as he was proved to be a stockholder in the spring of 1850, the presumption is that he continued to be a stockholder at the trial in the spring of 1853. — 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 41, 42 ; Garner v. Elliott, 8 Ala. 96.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Ala. 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-wetumpka-plank-road-co-v-webb-ala-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack