Juniata Bank v. Brown
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Court of Common °f Mifflin county, where a verdict and judgment were had in favour of the defendant, William Brown jun. The suit was brought upon a promissoxy note for 1522 dollars 50 cents, drawn by the defendant, payable to Joseph Ftartin, and indorsed by the said Joseph Martin, Samuel Martin, and Joseph M'-Coy. The note was discounted by the Tuniata Bank, and protested for non-payment.
Read the full summary
In ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Court of Common °f Mifflin county, where a verdict and judgment were had in favour of the defendant, William Brown jun. The suit was brought upon a promissoxy note for 1522 dollars 50 cents, drawn by the defendant, payable to Joseph Ftartin, and indorsed by the said Joseph Martin, Samuel Martin, and Joseph M'-Coy. The note was discounted by the Tuniata Bank, and protested for non-payment. After the commencement of this action, the Bank gave up the note and took a bond for the amount of what was due on it from Joseph Martin, for whom it was discounted,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J.
[After stating the facts of the case.]
By ancient custom in Pennsylvania, the books of original entry of a merchant, or shopkeeper, are received as evidence of the sale and delivery of goods. This rule was founded on convenience. In early times, many traders could not afford to keep clerks ; they were forced to give credit on sales of their goods, and it was supposed there would be no great danger in permitting their own entries to be prima facia evidence, provided they were made at the time the sales took place. But they never were…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Churchman v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Barretto v. SnowdenNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Halsey v. SinsebaughNew York Court of Appeals · 1857