Johnson v. . Knight

Locke, Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court: ' It has already been decided by this Court, and between this plaintiff and the defendants, that it is improper to receive evidence of the hand writing of the subscribing witness, who was the Plaintiff, and had taken a voluntary assignment of the bond in question. The case is again submitted upon another question, to wit:— *238 Whether the acknowledgment of the defendants, that, had given the bond and would pay it, be legal and pr0per evidence to be left to a jury to prove its execution. This point is expressly decided in the case of Abbott v. Plumb, (Doug. 216, 217 ;) and in the case of Cunliffe and Wife, and others, v. the Administrators of J. Houghton, (2 East, 187.) Lawrence, Justice, in delivering his opinion in this last case, decided in 1802, repeats this as a general principle of law : And although the evidence of the subscribing witness may be dispensed with, in cases of marriage, or in favour of executors or administrators, from necessity and in furtherance of justice, yet no case has been found where it has been dispensed with by reason of ihe subscribing witness becoming assignee. Let a nonsuit be entered.