FOX'S LESSEE v. PALMER, 2 U.S. 214 (1793)
U.S. Supreme Court
FOX'S LESSEE v. PALMER, 2 U.S. 214 (1793)
2 U.S. 214 (Dall.)
Fox's Lessee
v.
Palmer, et al. *
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
April Term, 1793
On the trial of this ejectment, the subscribing witnesses were offered to prove, that a deed, bearing date the 1st of April, 1784, was not, in fact, executed until the month of November following. It was objected, that such proof would contradict the attestation of the witnesses themselves. 4 Burr. 2224. 2 Esp. 194.
By the Court: A subscribing witness attests nothing but the sealing and delivery of the deed: The date is a matter which he does not attest, and to which he seldom attends. By the rules of the Common Law, the subscribing witnesses should be produced by the plaintiff to prove the execution of the deed; and surely it would be then competent to the defendant to cross-examine them, as to the real time of the delivery. But even if they were called to contradict their own previous attestation, the exception rather applies to their credit, than to their competency.
The objection over-ruled.
Footnotes
[Footnote *] This Ejectment was tried at York-Town, Nisi Prius, on the 24th May 1793, before Shippen and Bradford, Justices.[ Fox's Lessee v. Palmer
Footnote 2 U.S. 214 (1793) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
FOX'S LESSEE v. PALMER, 2 U.S. 214 (1793)
2 U.S. 214 (Dall.)
Fox's Lessee
v.
Palmer, et al. *
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
April Term, 1793
On the trial of this ejectment, the subscribing witnesses were offered to prove, that a deed, bearing date the 1st of April, 1784, was not, in fact, executed until the month of November following. It was objected, that such proof would contradict the attestation of the witnesses themselves. 4 Burr. 2224. 2 Esp. 194.
By the Court: A subscribing witness attests nothing but the sealing and delivery of the deed: The date is a matter which he does not attest, and to which he seldom attends. By the rules of the Common Law, the subscribing witnesses should be produced by the plaintiff to prove the execution of the deed; and surely it would be then competent to the defendant to cross-examine them, as to the real time of the delivery. But even if they were called to contradict their own previous attestation, the exception rather applies to their credit, than to their competency.
The objection over-ruled.
Footnotes
[Footnote *] This Ejectment was tried at York-Town, Nisi Prius, on the 24th May 1793, before Shippen and Bradford, Justices.[ Fox's Lessee v. Palmer
Footnote 2 U.S. 214 (1793) ]
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.
