Doebler v. Fisher
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Error to Lebanon county. The defendant in error, Samuel Fisher, brought this action of assumpsit in the court below, against JLbraham Doebler and Joseph Reinhart, the plaintiffs in error; and filed a declaration which contained two counts. ' The first was for money paid, laid out, and expended. The second, for money had and received.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Error to Lebanon county. The defendant in error, Samuel Fisher, brought this action of assumpsit in the court below, against JLbraham Doebler and Joseph Reinhart, the plaintiffs in error; and filed a declaration which contained two counts. ' The first was for money paid, laid out, and expended. The second, for money had and received. The verdict was taken generally for the plaintiff, but after the jury had left, the bar and a motion had been made for a new trial, the ver-diet was, from the judges’ notes, entered on the second count. This was objected to in this court as error; but…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, J.
Was the deposition evidence on either count in this declaration? Not on the first; for there, except in certain cases, the havinggiven. a negotiable note, nothing but the actual expenditure of money. will be admitted. Giving a bond for the debt of another will not support this count — of course giving property will not.
A count for money had and received has been supported without positive proof that money has been actually received, as, where goods were left a long time ago in a store to be sold — and the storekeeper would not produce them nor pay the price, it has been left to a jury to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cumming & Cumming v. Hackley & FisherNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Witherup v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kearney v. TannerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827