Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May Sessions, 1786.
In this cause, it appeared that a devise had been made of certain premises to A, provided, if he aliens it to any other person than his brother's children, he should pay one-fourth part of the purchase money to the testator's residuary legatee. The present ejectment was depending between the devisee, and one claiming paramount to the devise; and the residuary legatee, was offered as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff.
It was contended by Bradford and Chambers, for the defendant, that the witness ought not to be admitted: And they cited 2 Cun. Law, Diet. 3 Burr. 1856. 11 Mod. 225. 2 Wils. 332. 1 Stra. 507. Bull. N. P. 279. 1 Stra. 575.
On the contrary, Wilson and Yeates maintained the competency of the witness. Cro. F. 460. Hob. 170. Moore. 881. 1 Salk. 283. Bull. 279. 286. Theory of Evid. 225.
By the Court:—The interest of the residuary legatee is, in this case, so very remote, that we cannot presume it will have any bias upon his mind. He must, therefore, be admitted as a competent witness, leaving his credibility to the Jury.
* Ruled at Lancaster Nisi Prius.
Last modified: March 5, 2016