
    Ebenezer Sherman v. Luther P. Blodgett.
    
      Evidence.
    
    A witness may he inquired of, and may testify as to his opinion respecting the solvency of a person, when he has stated the facts and means of knowledge upon which his opinion is founded.
    Action on the case against the defendant for having, as sheriff, taken insufficient bail on mesne process. Plea, the general issue; trial by -, November Term, 1855, — Pier-point, J., presiding.
    The plaintiff having made out a prima facie case, the defendant introduced testimony to show that the bail was sufficient at the time it was taken. A witness stated that the bail, at the time of the service of the writ which the bail endorsed, owned certain real estate and personal property, which he described, and his means of knowing the then situation and circumstances of the bail. The counsel for the defendant then asked the witness what, in his opinion, from his knowledge of the said Ahira, (the hail,) and his affairs, was the value of said Ahira’s property over and above what he owed, at the time the defendant served the writ ? To the question so put by the defendant’s counsel, the counsel for the plaintiff objected. The objection was overruled by the court, and the witness answered the question, to which decision the plaintiff excepted.
    
      D. A. Smalley and G. Linsley for the plaintiff.
    
      J. Maeck for the defendant.
   Bx the court.

We have no doubt the evidence objected to was properly admitted.

The solvency of an individual is a matter resting somewhat in opinion ; and, in the present case, the witness had stated what property the bail owned at the time he entered bail, and his means of knowing the situation and circumstances of the bail; certainly there could then be no objection to his giving his opinion from his knowledge of the bail, and of his affairs, what he thought he was worth.

Judgment affirmed.  