Payne v. Payne

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Payne v. Payne

1 Root 367

DecidedJanuary 15, 1792

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 367 (Payne v. Payne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Payne v. Payne, 1 Root 367 (Colo. 1792).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

This cannot be allowed; for according to the rules of chancery, a man cannot introduce himself to be a witness in his own favor. The plaintiff in his answer to the bill, might appeal to the defendant’s conscience and so have him introduced. See Livingston v. Bird, Litchfield August 1791.

The defendant then moved for liberty to withdraw his bill and plead the statute in avoidance of the whole note; which was allowed by the court.

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

By the Court.

This cannot be allowed; for according to the rules of chancery, a man cannot introduce himself to be a witness in his own favor. The plaintiff in his answer to the bill, might appeal to the defendant’s conscience and so have him introduced. See Livingston v. Bird, Litchfield August 1791.

The defendant then moved for liberty to withdraw his bill and plead the statute in avoidance of the whole note; which was allowed by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-payne-conn-1792.