Case No. 5,056.

FRANKLIN BANK v. HIPKINS et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 315.]¹

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1822.

WITNESS—JOINT DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT.

In a joint action of debt upon a promissory note, if one of the defendants suffer judgment to go against him by default and a writ of inquiry be executed, he is not a competent witness, upon the issue joined by the other defendant.

Debt against Lewis Hipkins and Bar tholomy Rochford upon their joint promissory note. Judgment was rendered against Hipkins by default, and a writ of inquiry executed.

On the trial of the issue against Rochford, his counsel, Mr. Taylor, offered to examine Hipkins as a witness for Rochford; and cited Chapman v. Graves, 2 Camp. 333, note; Ward v. Haydon, 2 Esp. 552.

THE COURT (nem. con.) rejected the witness; because the action being joint the judgment must be joint; and if, upon the trial of the issue against Rochford the verdict should be in his favor, there can be no judgment against Hipkins.

¹ [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

This volume of American Law was transcribed for use on the Internet
through a contribution from Google.