Pipsico v. Bontz

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Pipsico v. Bontz

3 D.C. 425

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedApril 15, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 3 D.C. 425 (Pipsico v. Bontz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pipsico v. Bontz, 3 D.C. 425 (circtddc 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court overruled the objection on the authority of the Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Cranch, 299.

The defendants’ counsel offered a free mulatto as a witness for the defendants.

Mr. Taylor, for the plaintiff, objected; and cited the Virginia laws, Rev. Co. 187, December 17,1792, c. 103, § 5, that “ no negro or mulatto shall be a witness, except in pleas of the commonwealth against negroes or mulattoes; or in civil pleas where negroes or mulattoes alone shall be parties.” The Court rejected the witness.

<■

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

The Court overruled the objection on the authority of the Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Cranch, 299.

The defendants’ counsel offered a free mulatto as a witness for the defendants.

Mr. Taylor, for the plaintiff, objected; and cited the Virginia laws, Rev. Co. 187, December 17,1792, c. 103, § 5, that “ no negro or mulatto shall be a witness, except in pleas of the commonwealth against negroes or mulattoes; or in civil pleas where negroes or mulattoes alone shall be parties.” The Court rejected the witness.

<■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 D.C. 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pipsico-v-bontz-circtddc-1829.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack