Norment v. Fastnaght

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Norment v. Fastnaght

8 D.C. 515

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided April 15, 1874·No. No. 3134·Published

Opinion

By the Court:

The defendant offered Ward as an expert to testify that upon the face of the conveyance of real estate it did not [519] apply to or cover the premises iu controversy. We think the objection was properly sustained. Experts cannot be called to give their opinions on a subject of this character. Witnesses are competent to show lines and measurements, but the construction of written instruments is for the court alone.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Humphreys dissenting.

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

By the Court:

The defendant offered Ward as an expert to testify that upon the face of the conveyance of real estate it did not [519] apply to or cover the premises iu controversy. We think the objection was properly sustained. Experts cannot be called to give their opinions on a subject of this character. Witnesses are competent to show lines and measurements, but the construction of written instruments is for the court alone.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Humphreys dissenting.

Norment v. Fastnaght, 8 D.C. 515 (D.C. 1874).

Pincite

8 D.C. 515 (Norment v. Fastnaght) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.