Murray and Murray vs. Marsh and Marsh, 2 Hayw. 290

PER curiam. Marshall, Chief Justice, and Potter, Judges» Loomis and Tillinghast assigned to the plaintiffs the note sued on, which was made by the defendants, and afterwards became bankrupts, and obtained a certificate. And now Loomis is offered as a witness for the plaintiffs. He is a competent witness ; for he is by the certificate discharged of all debts prove-rbie under the commission, and his endorsement to the plaintiffs rendered him liable to them, so aa to make their demand against him.

Secondly ; the record of the proceedings against them, attested by the clerk of the district court, without any certificate of the presiding Judge, is good evidence; for the act of Congress relates to certificates in case of officers of the several states, not to those of the United States. Thirdly; if the objection to a witness arises from proof made by the objector, the witness cannot discharge himself of the objection, by any matter sworn by himself; it must be removed by proof drawn from-some other source.

Fourthly; depositions to him not specifying the parties between whom they are taken in the caption, nor naming them as parties in the body of the deposition, cannot be received. Fifthly; if a plaintiff' supposing himself ready, press for trial, and it is found on trial that the testimony he relied on cannot be given in evidence as he expected and he be nonsuited,, she allegation of surprize shall not prevail to set aside ihe non-suit'.