Knowles v. Parrott

U.S. District Court

Decided December 15, 1813

U.S. District Court · decided 1813-12-15

Assumpsit, against the indorser of Vincent King’s note. The defendant pleaded usury between the maker and the payee; and offered the maker of the note as a witness to prove the usury. objected. Although the books differ upon the question of competency, yet the case of Walton v. Shelley, 1 Term R. 290, is supported by the best authorities, although .it was overruled by the case of Jordaine v. Laslibrooke, 7 Term R. 001.

Decided 1813-12-15

THE COURT

¶1(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra) was of opinion that the maker of the note was a competent witness, unless interested.

¶2Mr. Key, for plaintiff, then contended that Mr. King was interested; for, if the plaintiff should recover against Parrott, and he pays the money to the plaintiff, Parrott will have a right of action against King, notwithstanding his discharge under the insolvent law, because it will be a new debt arising since his discharge; whereas if the plaintiff is defeated in the present action, Mr. King will be entirely exonerated.

¶3THE COURT, upon that ground (nem. con.) rejected the witness.