Orput v. Miller

Indiana Supreme Court

Orput v. Miller

5 Blackf. 571, 1841 Ind. LEXIS 51

DecidedJune 3, 1841

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Blackf. 571 (Orput v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Orput v. Miller, 5 Blackf. 571, 1841 Ind. LEXIS 51 (Ind. 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

Blackford, J.

Miller sued Orpul in assumpsit. Pleas, the general issue and a special plea in bar. . Cause submitted io Court, and judgment for the plaintiff.

On the trial, the plaintiff offered to examine one Noble as a wjtness. He was objected to as being interested, and -was examined on his voire dire. He- stated that lie . had asked one Rowan to' exécute for the, plaintiff, who was a nonresident, a bond for costs; that Rowan executed the bond;' but there-was no understanding .that .the witness would indemnify Rowan. He stated, also,.that he would feel himself bound in honour to pay-the costs, if Rowan should have them to pay; but that'he'was under no legal obligation to pay them. The witness was examined,' and his admission is assigned for error. ' - ' 1. '

. The law is well settled that the objection here made to the witness is not tenable. The very point .is decided' in Pederson v. Stoffles, 1 Campb. 144. Mr. Phillips says that the obligation of a witness; who believes himself bound merely- in honour to indemnify the bail, is in general of a nature so uncertain, and variable," that it cannot safely be recognized ^ in Courts of justice as a.motive of- conduct. 1 Phill. Ev. 54. To-be sure, a Witness so situated may not be entitled to the same credit with a witness éntirely free ■ from any bias-, but that is an objection only to his credibility. • ' .

The record contains the evidence in the cause, and the defendant contends1 that it does not support the judgment; but in this wé think he is mistaken. . .

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with 5. per cent.damages and costs.

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

Blackford, J.

Miller sued Orpul in assumpsit. Pleas, the general issue and a special plea in bar. . Cause submitted io Court, and judgment for the plaintiff.

On the trial, the plaintiff offered to examine one Noble as a wjtness. He was objected to as being interested, and -was examined on his voire dire. He- stated that lie . had asked one Rowan to' exécute for the, plaintiff, who was a nonresident, a bond for costs; that Rowan executed the bond;' but there-was no understanding .that .the witness would indemnify Rowan. He stated, also,.that he would feel himself bound in honour to pay-the costs, if Rowan should have them to pay; but that'he'was under no legal obligation to pay them. The witness was examined,' and his admission is assigned for error. ' - ' 1. '

. The law is well settled that the objection here made to the witness is not tenable. The very point .is decided' in Pederson v. Stoffles, 1 Campb. 144. Mr. Phillips says that the obligation of a witness; who believes himself bound merely- in honour to indemnify the bail, is in general of a nature so uncertain, and variable," that it cannot safely be recognized ^ in Courts of justice as a.motive of- conduct. 1 Phill. Ev. 54. To-be sure, a Witness so situated may not be entitled to the same credit with a witness éntirely free ■ from any bias-, but that is an objection only to his credibility. • ' .

The record contains the evidence in the cause, and the defendant contends1 that it does not support the judgment; but in this wé think he is mistaken. . .

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with 5. per cent.damages and costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Blackf. 571, 1841 Ind. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orput-v-miller-ind-1841.