Tassey v. Church
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. Church, M’Vay & Gordon against John Tassey. This was an action on the case in assumpsit, founded upon the following draft: $555.48. “ Allegheny, 1st July 1840. Please pay Church, M’Vay & Gordon, five hundred and fifty-five dollars forty-eight cents, and charge the estate of Thomas C. Patterson. Andrew Fleming, Trustee. To John Tassey, Administrator.” (Endorsed) “ Accepted, John Tassey, Administrator.”
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. Church, M’Vay & Gordon against John Tassey. This was an action on the case in assumpsit, founded upon the following draft: $555.48. “ Allegheny, 1st July 1840. Please pay Church, M’Vay & Gordon, five hundred and fifty-five dollars forty-eight cents, and charge the estate of Thomas C. Patterson. Andrew Fleming, Trustee. To John Tassey, Administrator.” (Endorsed) “ Accepted, John Tassey, Administrator.” Andrew Fleming was the trustee of Mrs Patterson, who was the heir at law of Thomas C. Patterson. The defendant then gave evidence to show that…
1Per curiam
— The argument is, that as the addition of the word administrator must have been intended to mean something, it could have been designed to show nothing but that the acceptance was by the administrator, and not by the man — a distinction too fine for the current of ordinary transactions. The designation may have been used to show the character of the payment at the settlement of the administration account, or for some other purpose not known; or it may have been accidental. Its object is too imperfectly disclosed to influence the terms of the contract. In this instance the drawer signed…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Coffman v. D. C. Campbell & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1877
- DeRoy v. RichardsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Sharpe v. BellisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Moran v. RisleyNew York Marine Court · 1879