Leiper v. Peirce
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Delaioare county. This was an action of assumpsit brought by Caleb Peirce for the use of Robert E. Hannum, against Samuel M. Leiper and Peter H. Engle, who survived Archibald T. Dick, to November Term 1841, for work and labour, money paid, laid out and expended, &c.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Delaioare county. This was an action of assumpsit brought by Caleb Peirce for the use of Robert E. Hannum, against Samuel M. Leiper and Peter H. Engle, who survived Archibald T. Dick, to November Term 1841, for work and labour, money paid, laid out and expended, &c. Upon the trial, Caleb Peirce, the plaintiff, was offered as a witness, and the plaintiff read in evidence the following assignment from Peirce to Robert E. Hannum, of the claim in this suit: Know all men by these presents, That I, Caleb Peirce of the borough of Chester, in the county of Delaware and…
1Per curiam
The point in. this case came up for decision before the-report of Post v. Avery was published; else it is to be presumed that it would have been ruled differently. The principle of that case is that a colourable assignment to make the legal plaintiff a witness, shall not devest his interest; and that every assignment is to be deemed colourable till the contrary be made *557to appear. Here the cause of action was an account stated by the plaintiff himself, without a voucher or scrap of paper to support it; and if it is not to be recovered by force of his own testimony, it is not to be recovered at…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Phinney v. TraceySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845
- Cochran v. M'TeagueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844