General
Samuel Hilton v. Joseph W. Beck
4 D.C. 1074 Cranch 107·United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia·1830
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
Samuel Hilton v. Joseph W. Beck.
In replevin, the defendant, (a constable who had seized the goods of the plaintiff in execution as the goods of Harrington,) was permitted to testify for himself, upon being indemnified by the plaintiff in the execution.
Replevin, for goods of the plaintiff, taken by the defendant, a constable, as the goods of one Harrington, upon a fieri facias against him.
Mr. Wallach, for the plaintiff. ■
Mr. Coxe, for the defendant.
[MAJORITY]
The defendant, Beck, was permitted by the Court to testify for himself, upon being indemnified by the plaintiff in the fieri facias.
See the case of Wise v. Bowen, in this Court, at April term, 1821, [2 Cranch, C. C. 239,] arid Dixon v. Waters, at December term, 1824, Id. 527.