Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Mo. 433

Page v. Kankey

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided August 15, 1840

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1840-08-15

1st. That the Court erro;] in refusing to permit the defendant to cross-examine Childs, as he proposed to do after he had been sworn in chief by the plaintiff, 4. Wendell’s Rep. 369, Jackson on the demise of Lowell vs Parkhunt, see 1. Phillip’s E. 228, old edition, 273-4, Cowan’s Edi. 2. Wendell 166, same book 583, 5, Mass. 334-5-6, 11, Dicking 273-4. 2nd.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1840-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1906

6 state decisions

201840185018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion of the Court by

Napton, Judge.

¶2Kankey sued Page in assumpsit, to which defendant plead non-assumpsit and set-off. Issue was taken on the plea of non-assumpsit, verdict and judgment for plaintiff.

¶3On the trial, plaintiff introduced one Childs as a witness, *434testified on his voir dire that he was interested in the of the cause-, in favor of Page.

i» sw^nfamT gives some oridencfit however for-^tast^he"" may be cross .examined in relation to.ail matters in■volved m the ioa.oe.

¶4Notwithstanding, plaintiff examined him and proved by his'testimony, the signature of said Page to certain letters, which he wished 'to read to the jury. Page the defendant, Pro.P0£ed to cross-examine witness, in relation to other mat-tors involved in the issue, but the court refused to permit the .. „ witness to ne examined m relation to any point except the sígnature °f said letters by Page. The defendant excepted to the opinion of the court, and this is all the error relied on • ,i - _ .. , ^ COUlt.

¶5The nfle on this subject is clearly laid down by Phillips in , . , J J J l bis treatise on evidence. “If a witness is called by a party, merely for the purpose of producing a written instrument, belongmg to the party, which is to be proved by another witness, he need not be sworn; and if not sworn, he will not be subject to cross examination. If a witness is sworn and gives some evidence (as proving ail instrument) however formal the proof may be, he is to he considered a witness for all purposes; and this although he may be substantially the real party in the suit, and the party on the record a mere .nominal parly.” p. 274, Cowans Ed.

¶6This is amply supported by adjudicated cases. 4, Wendell 369, 2, Wendell 166, 11, Peck 273.

¶7The reason of this rule is obvious and, I think, satisfactory. If a party voluntarily calls upon an interested and in competent witness, for the purpose of sustaining by his testimony something favorable to his side, he admits that the witness is above the reach of improper influences, and his adversan', it would seem just, should have the full benefit of such admission.

¶8The court should have allowed the examination, proposed, and for this error, the judgment must be reversed.

/6/mo/433 · .json · Public domain