Brodnax v. Brodnax ex rel. Pippin

Citations

• 21 Miss. 369

Syllabus

<p>The guarantor or fraudulent assignor of a promissory note is not a competent ■witness for the assignee or usee, in an action against the maker, to sustain the consideration of the note.</p> <p>Therefore, where an attachment at law was sued out by the holder of a note, and the declaration was filed in the name of the payee for the use of the holder; and on the trial, to rebut proof of fraud, the nominal plaintiff was offered as a witness for the usee, and stated on his voir dire that he was not interested in the suit, yet had assigned the note to the usee, and in payment had taken the usee’s note, had represented that the note was valid and its consideration good ; and if the usee failed in the suit he (the usee) would still be liable to him for the amount of the note: it was held, that he was incompetent; whether he was interested or not was a question for the court; and it was plain he was so, because, if his representations should prove ■ false, the usee would not be liable to pay the amount agreed to be paid to the witness.</p>