New Ingestion is live for the UK, the EU, US federal law and ~7M US decisions. Search the corpus ›
How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.

This is a decision of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, given 1 April 1763, 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 April 1763
Later treatment
Not cited by any later authority here
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania

Authority

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Citation
1 U.S. 7
Unknown treatment 0 citing authorities

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

Read aloud by your browser
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided
1763-04-01

Headnote

Thomas Wallace v. Child and Styles. Competency of witness. In an action on a policy of insurance, the master of a ship, owning part of the cargo, insured bj other underwriters, who refused to pay until the determination of this suit, was admitted a wit ness, swearing himself to be disinterested. Suit on a policy of insurance. It was set forth in the declaration, that the vessel sprung a leak at sea, and put into Providence through necessity. The master of the ship was produced by the plaintiff as a witness, to prove the bill of lading, and to give a general account of the transactions on board the vessel and at Providence. I-Iis admission was opposed, because the captain himself had goods on board, which were insured, and the money was refused to be paid by the underwriters on his policy, until this suit was determined, and therefore he was interested.. But it was answered, that the master of the ship was the only person who can be supposed capable of giving a full account of the matter : and part of the defense in this case being, that the goods insured were enumerated commodities, and therefore not lawful tó be shipped from Carolina to Madeira; and the master’s goods insured were not to be landed at Madeira, but at London; therefore, the master’s insurance could not be affected by any determination in this case.

Judgment

Read from a scan

OCR confidence 0.391 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]

¶ 2The Court ruled, that he should be examined on the voir dire, and if he said he was disinterested, he should be sworn in chief ; which was done, and he was admitted a witness.

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 “Wallace v. Child” in the last three months, from GDELT.