2 Johns. 189
Decided February 15, 1807
New York Supreme Court · decided 1807-02-15
FROM the return to the certiorari in this cause, it appeared that the plaintiff below brought his action for a certain quantity of lead delivered according toa written order addresséd to the plaintiff below, and signed by the r • T , defendant, as follows, “ Sir, please to let Mr. E. Knight have that lead, and I will be accountable for the same.” On the order was indorsed a receipt by Knight, that he had received “twenty-three pounds of white lead, on the order at one…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1846
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1807-02-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1The witness was a mere agent or servant, and must be considered as a competent witness, from necessity. A justice cannot act from his own previous knowledge of facts; but they must be proved before him. He must decide upon evidence produced in court. The justice ought not to have refused the release tendered by the defendant to the witness. The judgment below must be reversed.
¶2Judgment reversed.