Clarke v. Benford
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Somerset county. This was an action of covenant by David Benford v. George A. Clarke, on an. article of agreement dated 2d February, 1848, by which the plaintiff agreed to manage a tannery, &c. The breach assigned was the non-payment of $500. Plea, payment, set-off, and that plaintiff mismanaged the tannery, &c. On 30th July, 1852, on part of the plaintiff, a rule was entered to take depositions on a commission, and interrogatories were filed.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Somerset county. This was an action of covenant by David Benford v. George A. Clarke, on an. article of agreement dated 2d February, 1848, by which the plaintiff agreed to manage a tannery, &c. The breach assigned was the non-payment of $500. Plea, payment, set-off, and that plaintiff mismanaged the tannery, &c. On 30th July, 1852, on part of the plaintiff, a rule was entered to take depositions on a commission, and interrogatories were filed. On 16th August, 1852, a commission was issued to William Small, of Madison county, Ohio. It was said, on the part of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Knox, J.
Four objections were made in the Court below to the admission of the deposition of Martin B. Loy.
1. That the deposition was directed to the plaintiff or his counsel, and not to the prothonotary.
2. That the answers do not appear to be answers to the interrogatories ; and that the interrogatories should be written down at length before each answer.
3. That no notice of the interrogatories filed was'given to the defendant or his attorney.
4. Because the witness was sworn in chief,, and not specially, to answer the interrogatories.
The objections were…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Anderson v. LongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914