Norment v. Fastnaght

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Norment v. Fastnaght

8 D.C. 515

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 1874

DocketNo. 3134

StatusPublished

This text of 8 D.C. 515 (Norment v. Fastnaght) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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]*519apply 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]*519apply 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 D.C. 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norment-v-fastnaght-dc-1874.