Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Tex. 564

Cornish v. Cornish

Texas Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1882

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1882-03-24

<p>Appeal from Freestone. Tried below before the Hon. L. D. Bradley.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1945

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-03-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bonner, Associate Justice.

¶1This is a suit for a divorce, in which, on the trial below, the court excluded the evidence of the plaintiff in his own behalf, and rendered judgment against him; and the only question for our decision is, whether in this the court erred.

¶2Under our former statute (Pasch. Dig., art. 6826), to the effect that there should be no exclusion of any witness because a party to a suit or interested in the issue to be *565tried, it was decided that this did not give parties to a divorce suit the right to testify in their own behalf. Stafford v. Stafford, 41 Tex., 111.

[Opinion delivered March 24, 1882.]

¶3Our present statute, in force when this suit was tried, provides that “The husband or wife of a party to a suit or proceeding, or who is interested in the issue to be tried, shall not be incompetent to testify therein, except as to confidential communications between such husband and wife.” R. S., art. 2247. We are of opinion that this statute does not give parties to divorce suits the right to testify in their own behalf.

¶4To permit such an innovation upon sound public policy and the salutary principles of the common law, the statute must be clear and explicit.

¶5Affirmed.

/56/tex/564 · .json · Public domain