Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 Fall 2014, Vol. 40, No. 3 | Page 17

Doty had no right to seize those shocks.
Disputes among farmers and other businessmen were the staple of the Court’s decisions in those years.
Stephen approved of Temple, a joint
tortfeasor, testifying against his partner in a
scheme to defraud another party in Brown
v. Marsh (1836), because Temple’s interest
was inchoate.
His testimony in this case would be
evidence to subject himself in a similar action, whenever the plaintiff might
choose to institute a suit. Nothing
short of a judgment satisfied against
the defendant could protect him.
Now it is only a fixed and certain interest which renders a witness incompetent; whereas