How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.
This is a decision of Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, given 1 January 1790, from Caselaw Access Project. No later decision here cites it — that does not show it is still good law.
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
Source
- Published by
- Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab
- Source
- Caselaw Access Project
- Licence
- Open — US judicial opinions are not copyrightable (government edicts doctrine)
- Held here since
- 26 September 2026
Version
- Decided
- 1 January 1790
- Later treatment
- Not cited by any later authority here
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Authority
- Court
- Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
- Citation
- 2 U.S. 50
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
The decision
- Court
- Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
- Decided
- 1790-01-01
Headnote
Innis versus Miller. REPLEVIN.—The Defendant offered Francis Bailey, as a witness; who being sworn on his voir dire, said “that he was a judgment creditor of the defendant’s; that he expected, if the defendant recovered, to be paid, at least a part of his debt; and that he did not know that the defendant had any other property than what was involved in the Replevin, to satisfy him; but, on the contrary, he believed that his payment depended on the defendant’s recovery.” It appeared, likewise, that Bailey was the attorney in fact of the defendant, and in that character was active in prosecuting this, and other suits. The admission of the witness was opposed by Bradford, Todd, and Levy, who cited 1 Dall. p. 62, M'Veaugh v. Goods. And supported by Serjeant, who cited Abrams v. Bunner.
Judgment
Read from a scanOCR confidence 0.647 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.
¶ 1[majority — BY THE COURT:]
¶ 2BY THE COURT: The law on this subject has been fully settled in the modern cases, by an accurate discrimination between the competency and the credibility of witnesses. The stream of justice should, however, be preserved clear and uncontaminated and although a creditor is not excluded frogiving testimony, as such; yet if he acknowledges an expedition, that he shall be bettered by the fate of the cause, (as in the case of M'Veaugh v. Goods, which was properly ruled) he is sensible of a positive interest, that must give a biass to his mind. From the answers of the witness, therefore, we must reject his testimony.
AI summary
Choose who the summary is for. Every statement links to the paragraph it comes from — the summary is never the only way to read this.
Ask LawTAG
Sign in to ask your team's LawTAGs about this page.
What it relied on
No outbound citations have been extracted for this decision.
In the news
News coverage of “Innis v. Miller” in the last three months, from GDELT.