McKay v. Riley

Citations

• 135 Ill. 586
• 26 N.E. 525

Syllabus

<p>1. Witnesses—competency — co-defendant in chancery — the statute construed. On the petition of an administrator for an order for the ■' sale of land of his intestate to pay debts, a defendant, being an heir. of the intestate, is competent to testify to facts showing that his co-defendant, another heir of the intestate, is the equitable owner of the . land, as his interest is adverse to the party calling him.</p> <p>2. The statute (Eev. Stat. chap. 51, secs. 1, 2,) relating to the competency of parties to testify, does not render one incompetent to testify who was competent before its passage. Since that act, as before its passage, a defendant in chancery may call his co-defendant to testify against his interest.</p> <p>3. Administbatob—costs—whether administrator personally liable. Where an administrator in good faith resists an adverse claim of title interposed to his application to sell, and, as belonging to his intestate, .to pay debts, and fails, the costs should not be taxed against him per- . sonally. Judgment for the costs should be against him in his representative capacity.</p> <p>4. Ebbob wild not always bevebse—incompetent witness testifying. The admission of the testimony of an incompetent witness will not call for a reversal of a decree authorized by other proper evidence, as such ruling works no injury to the party,against whom it was given.</p>