Longenecker v. Hyde
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county, in which Court the plaintiffs brought an action upon the case against the defendant, for having fraudulently and falsely represented a certain F. Eckstein r ; . „ ,j7 . , . , as a man or property, integrity, See. with a view to induce the plaintiffs to trade with him.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county, in which Court the plaintiffs brought an action upon the case against the defendant, for having fraudulently and falsely represented a certain F. Eckstein r ; . „ ,j7 . , . , as a man or property, integrity, See. with a view to induce the plaintiffs to trade with him. The declaration averred that the plaintiffs, who were distillers, did in or such raise representation send three hogsheads or to Eckstein to be sold on commission, and that in consequence of his insolvency, they suffered loss, See. ' Upon the trial of…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The rule of. law is, that no witness is to be heard but upon oath. The confession of a party is in*2deed evidence without oath, because in its nature nothing can be more satisfactory. But Eckstein was no party to the suit, nor was he the agent of the defendant, or in any manner connected with him. To admit his assertions then without oath, would lead to dangerous consequences. Collusions might easily be formed between plaintiffs and their witnesses, who might easily be induced to make declarations in letters, which they would be afraid to verify, on oath hi open court. The…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Heddings v. SteeleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. BujanowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Heddings v. SteeleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Stetson v. City BankOhio Supreme Court · 1853
- United American Fire Insurance Co. v. American Bonding Co. of BaltimoreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911