Riddle v. Moss, 11 U.S. 206 (1812)

U.S. Supreme Court

Riddle v. Moss, 11 U.S. 206 (1812)

Riddle v. Moss

11 U.S. 206

Syllabus

Decided: that the principal obligor in a bond is not a competent witness for the surety; in an action upon the bond; the principal being liable to the surety for costs in case the judgment should be against him.

This was an action of debt on a joint bond given by John Welch as principal obligor and the defendant Moss as his surety. The suit abated as to Welch by the return of the marshal that he was no inhabitant of the district. The defendant, Moss, pleaded specially certain facts in avoidance of the bond as to him alone, upon which issue was joined, and upon the trial the defendant, Moss, offered as a witness the said John Welch, the principal obligor, who was permitted by the court below to testify for the defendant, and upon his cross-examination confessed that he had made over to Moss all his property as security to indemnify him against the event of this suit.

The plaintiff took a bill of exceptions, and the verdict and judgment being against him, brought his writ of error to this Court.

Page 11 U. S. 207

U.S. Supreme Court

Riddle v. Moss, 11 U.S. 206 (1812)

Riddle v. Moss

11 U.S. 206

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

Decided: that the principal obligor in a bond is not a competent witness for the surety; in an action upon the bond; the principal being liable to the surety for costs in case the judgment should be against him.

This was an action of debt on a joint bond given by John Welch as principal obligor and the defendant Moss as his surety. The suit abated as to Welch by the return of the marshal that he was no inhabitant of the district. The defendant, Moss, pleaded specially certain facts in avoidance of the bond as to him alone, upon which issue was joined, and upon the trial the defendant, Moss, offered as a witness the said John Welch, the principal obligor, who was permitted by the court below to testify for the defendant, and upon his cross-examination confessed that he had made over to Moss all his property as security to indemnify him against the event of this suit.

The plaintiff took a bill of exceptions, and the verdict and judgment being against him, brought his writ of error to this Court.

Page 11 U. S. 207

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court to the following effect.

The Court is of opinion that Welch, the co-obligor, was interested, and was therefore an incompetent witness.

Page 11 U. S. 208

It was a consideration of some importance that he had given Moss a deed of trust of his effects to indemnify him against this suit, but the principal circumstance was that Welch's liability would be increased to the extent of the costs of this suit if the judgment should be against Moss.

Judgment reversed.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.