Skip to main content

White v. Ross

Citations

  • 147 Ill. 427
  • 35 N.E. 541

Syllabus

<p>1. Witness—competency of party in behalf of co-defendant, in chancery. A defendant in chancery is a competent witness to testify in behalf of a co-defendant on any question in which he has no interest, and section 1 of the act in relation to evidence and depositions in civil cases has in no manner changed that rule. Nothing in that act contained indicates an intention to render any witness incompetent in any case, when, in the absence' of the statute, he was and had been ■competent.</p> <p>2. Under the practice in chancery a defendant might always testify for a co-defendant if his evidence did not necessarily involve his own interest, otherwise a complainant might prevent a witness from testifying, simply by making him a defendant to the bill. Hence the inquiry -is not so much whether the name of the witness appears upon the record, as whether he is in fact swearing to promote his own interest.</p> <p>3. In chancery a witness is not disqualified merely because he has an interest in the event of the suit, but his interest must be against the party whose interests are sought to be prejudiced by his testimony. And even when the witness has an interest in favor of the party calling him, he may still be competent if it appear that he has an equal interest on the other side. If his interests are equally balanced, and his mind is in a state of equipoise, which leaves him indifferent to the result, he is competent.</p> <p>4. Where a defendant in a bill in chancery does not dispute his liability to account, and the only question is to which of two parties he is liable,-—the complainant or a co-defendant,—he will be a competent witness, his interest being equally balanced.</p> <p>5. On bill by one of several heirs to set aside her deeds to her mother, ■on the ground that they were procured by fraud and imposition, and seeking for an accounting by one of her brothers, the latter is a competent witness for his co-defendants, to show that there was no fraud and imposition pra

Judges: Bailey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.