Haydock v. Tracy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common PJeas of Bradford county. Henry W. Haydock against George Tracy. Case in assumpsit. The plaintiff declared for goods sold and delivered to the defendant ; for goods sold and delivered to the defendant and one Ridgway, the recovery of which was barred by the Statute of Limitations, but which the defendant promised to pay.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common PJeas of Bradford county. Henry W. Haydock against George Tracy. Case in assumpsit. The plaintiff declared for goods sold and delivered to the defendant ; for goods sold and delivered to the defendant and one Ridgway, the recovery of which was barred by the Statute of Limitations, but which the defendant promised to pay. The only proof given in the cause was the deposition of Humphrey B. Dunham, the material parts of which were as follows: “ In the fall of 1837, he called on the defendant Tracy, and presented to him an account for merchandize furnished him (Tracy) and one…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Huston, J.
This case comes before us in such a shape that we must affirm the judgment, unless we 'suppose some evidence to have been given other than is sent up to us. There is no evidence before us that the plaintiff sold or delivered any goods to the defendant alone, or to him and Ridgway, except what appears in the testimony of Dunham taken on a commission. (Here the learned judge states the substance of the deposition).
On this evidence the Judge told the jury that the plaintiff could not recover—and certainly he could not. I do not say what might…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Withers v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
- Kepner v. KeeferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Berghaus v. CalhounSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Magee v. MageeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Hart v. YuntSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bradford v. Spyker's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858