Longenecker v. Hyde
Decision Date | 22 May 1813 |
Citation | 6 Binn. 1 |
Parties | LONGENECKER and another v. HYDE. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
IN ERROR.
The letter of a person, admitting that he had received certain merchandize from the plaintiff to sell upon commission, is not evidence of that fact in a suit brought against a third person to recover damages for having falsely represented the writer of the letter to be a man of property, and integrity & c.
THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county, in which Court the plaintiffs brought an action upon the case against the defendant, for having fraudulently and falsely represented a certain F. Eckstein as a man of property, integrity, & c. with a view to induce the plaintiffs to trade with him. The declaration averred that the plaintiffs, who were distillers, did in consequence of such false representation send three hogsheads of gin to Eckstein to be sold on commission, and that in consequence of his insolvency, they suffered loss, & c.
Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiffs, having proved that the defendant recommended Eckstein as a man of property, & c. offered in evidence, to prove the delivery of the gin to Eckstein, a letter from him to them acknowledging the receipt of three hogsheads, the day before which he promised to account for; but upon the defendant's objection the court overruled the evidence and whether the Common Pleas were right was the question.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Bujanowski
...the oath requirement as a further assurance of reliability. Commonwealth v. Stewart, 1 Serg. & Rawle 342, 344 (1815); Longenecker v. Hyde, 6 Binn. 1, 2 (1813). Out-of-court declarations also deprive the trier of fact of an opportunity to examine the demeanor of the declarant. Universal Came......
-
Heddings v. Steele
...the oath requirement as a further assurance of reliability. Commonwealth v. Stewart, 1 Serg. & Rawle 342, 344 (1815); Longenecker v. Hyde, 6 Binn. 1, 2 (1813). Out-of-court declarations also deprive the trier of fact of an opportunity to examine the demeanor of the declarant. Universal Came......
-
Quinn v. Hanley
...Andrews, 5 Porter, 107. The receipts of third persons are not admissible in evidence, the party making them not being produced: Longenecker v. Hyde, 6 Binn. 1; Spargo v. Brown, 9 B. & C. 935; Cuthbert v. Gilbert, 4 S. & R. 550; Warner v. Price, 3 Wend. 398; Lonergan v. Stewart, 55 Ill. 44; ......
-
Johnstone v. Scott
...and recorded: 2 Comp. L., § 5178, sub. 3 4. The town treasurer's receipt for taxes was not competent evidence: 4 Pick. 283; 4 S. & R., 551; 6 Binn. 1; 5 556; 9 B. & C., 938. Sutherland & Miller, for defendants in error: 1. The property claimed is described only by numbers of lots and blocks......