Petriken v. Collier
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Columbia county. Nathan Collier against David Petriken, James Madden and Reuben Winslow, trading in the name of Petriken, Madden & Co. This was an action on the ease, in assumpsit, founded upon a due-bill for §656.86. The writ was served upon Petriken alone.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Columbia county. Nathan Collier against David Petriken, James Madden and Reuben Winslow, trading in the name of Petriken, Madden & Co. This was an action on the ease, in assumpsit, founded upon a due-bill for §656.86. The writ was served upon Petriken alone. To prove the execution of the due-bill, the plaintiff offered in evidence a deposition taken upon a commission to the State of Maryland, in which were the following interrogatory and answer:— “Are you acquainted with the handwriting of the defendant and that of each of his partners 1 have you seen each of them…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
It does not strike me that the interrogatories mentioned in the first bill can be considered as leading, for there is nothing to indicate the answer expected from the witness; and this is the test, as is ruled rn 9 Watts 164.
But the answer to the sixth interrogatory is objected to because the exhibit referred to, w/,.. the due-b'ill on which the suit is brought, is not attached to the deposition or commission as returned by the commissioners. This is a fatal exception; for unless the exhibit is identified with much niore precision than has…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lewis v. ManlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1797
- Summers v. WallaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
3Cited by3 opinions
- Susquehanna & Wyoming Valley Railroad & Coal Co. v. QuickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Kelley v. WeberNew York Supreme Court · 1880
- Hobart v. McCoySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846