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
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
- 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 scanOCR 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.
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.