Myers v. Irwin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county. Matthew Irwin, the plaintiff below, filed a declaration for money paid by him for the use of the defendant, on which issue was joined, a verdict found, and judgment entered for the plaintiff. There was, besides, a statement of the cause of action, filed under the act of assembly.
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county. Matthew Irwin, the plaintiff below, filed a declaration for money paid by him for the use of the defendant, on which issue was joined, a verdict found, and judgment entered for the plaintiff. There was, besides, a statement of the cause of action, filed under the act of assembly. This statement set forth a promissory note for 600 dollars given by the defendants to Levi G, Hollingsworth, dated 10th November, 1812¿ and payable in sixty days after date, without defalcation, at the Farmers' Bank of Lancaster. It was indorsed by Levi G.…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
(After stating the case.) Whether the note was evidence, is now the question : the Court of Common Pleas having admitted it, and a bill of exceptions having been taken to their opinion. I have no doubt that the note *370was legal evidence, because nothing appeared on its face to render it void. If it was indeed void, it was owing to circumstances dehors the note, which might very properly be given in evidence after the note was read, and then the defendant’s counsel had a right to the Court’s opinion on the legal operation of the whole evidence. The objection to the legality of the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Exxon Corp. v. EagertonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Thomas v. DakinNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Kennedy v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Graham v. ParhamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
- Todd v. BirdsallNew York Supreme Court · 1823