General
The Franklin Bank v. Hipkins & Rochford
2 D.C. 3152 Cranch 315·United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia·1822
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The Franklin Bank v. Hipkins & Rochford.
In a joint action of debt upon a promissory note, if one of tbe defendants suffer judgment to go against him by default and a writ of inquiry be executed, be is not a competent witness, upon the issue joined by the other defendant.
Debt against Lewis,Hipkins and Bartholomy 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 Eochford, his counsel, Mr. Taylor offered to examine Hipkins as a witness for Eochford ; and cited Chapman v. Graves, 2 Camp. 333 ; Ward v. Hayden et al., 2 Esp. Eep. 552.
[MAJORITY — The Court]
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 Eochford the verdict should be in his favor, there can be no judgment against Hipkins.