Stuhlmuller v. Ewing

39 Miss. 447
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 Miss. 447 (Stuhlmuller v. Ewing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stuhlmuller v. Ewing, 39 Miss. 447 (Mich. 1860).

Opinion

Harris, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The only question for determination here is, whether the wife, after the death of her husband, is competent to testify in favor of his estate against a creditor as to conversations between her husband and such creditor in relation to the contract upon which their dealings were based.

By the common law the incompetency of husband and wife on this subject is placed, first, on their identity of rights and interests, and second, on principles of public policy.

In its spirit and extent the rule is analogous to that which excludes confidential communications made by a client to his attorney, and therefore at common law the wife, after the death of the husband, has been held competent to prove facts not in their nature confidential, nor coming to her knowledge from the husband by means of the marital relation. See 1 Greenleaf Ev. sec. 338; also Coffee v. Jones, 13 Pick. 445; Williams v. Baldwin, 7 Verm. R. 506; Cornell v. Vanartsdalen, 4 Barr. 364; Wells v. Tucker, 3 Binney, 366; Saunders v. Hendricks, 5 Ala. R. 224; McGuire v. Maloney, 1 B. Monroe, 224; also the numerous authorities collected and reviewed in the very able argument of the counsel for defendant in error.

Our statute, Rev. Code, 510, having removed the incompetency arising from interest and her testimony not falling within the class of confidential communications, which, on principles of public policy, are held sacred, there remains no legal obstacle to its admissibility. In the case of Dunlap et al v. Hearn, 37 Miss. R. 471, these same principles are recognized.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

Related

Brown v. Patterson
124 S.W. 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Graves v. Graves
69 S.W. 544 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1902)
Saffold v. Horne
72 Miss. 470 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1894)
Gordon, Rankin & Co. v. Tweedy
71 Ala. 202 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Whitfield v. Whitfield
44 Miss. 254 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 Miss. 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuhlmuller-v-ewing-miss-1860.