|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRICE v. TYSON. 405
a distribution of die surplus had been made among his next of
kin. (m) It is true, that these matters might, without danger of
inaccuracy, have been sufficiently set forth in a more condensed
manner and with fewer words; but I cannot consider them as
irrelevant, or say that they have been so very diffusively set forth
as to amount to impertinences which should be expunged.
But these defendants have exhibited, as a part of their answer,
a copy from the records of the Orphans Court of their second
administration account, and of the distribution of the surplus of
their intestate's estate. This I hold to have been wholly useless
and unnecessary; because their administration accounts, or the
mode in which they had administered the estate of their intestate,
was in no way questioned, or called for by the bill; nor were any
such matters involved in the controversy to be determined by the
suit at common law, in relation to which dispute alone they were
interrogated by the plaintiff. This copy of the account from the
Orphans Court must therefore be expunged from this case,
The plaintiff has also objected to what the defendant Mary has
said in relation to the freight; because what she states could, at
most, amount only to a verbal agreement, and the contract of the
parties was in writing.
This allegation made by the defendant Mary, in the joint and
several answer of these defendants, is evidently introduced as an
avoidance of so much of the plaintiff's claim; and therefore, could
be of no weight on any prayer for relief here; unless sustained by
proof. And if offered to be so established, the question would
then arise, whether such proof should not be rejected so far as it
was attempted to be relied on as giving an interpretation to a
written contract; or whether it would not be admitted upon the
ground, not of construing, but as an addition to, or alteration of a
written agreement.
If the defendant Mary were offered as a witness, to prove the
facts she states, it might be objected, that she was incompetent;
because of having been, at the time she obtained a knowledge of
the facts of which she speaks, the wife of the party as to whose con-
tract she testifies; as husband and wife are incompetent witnesses
for or against each other, as to all matters occurring during the
marriage, as well after as during the coverture, (n) If, however,
(m) Boydell v. Drummond, 11 East. 144, note; Leeson v. Holt, 2 Com. Law Rep.
849; Wright v. Pulham, 18 Com. Law Rep. 271.—(n) Nelius v. Brickell, 1 Hay-
wood's Rep. 19; Doker v. Hasler, 21 Com. Law Rep, 416.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
