M'Gunnagle v. Thornton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Assumpsit, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, brought by Joseph Thornton, the plaintiff below, against David M‘Gunnagle, in which a verdict and judgment were had in favour of the plaintiff below, for 122 dollars, 16 cents.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, brought by Joseph Thornton, the plaintiff below, against David M‘Gunnagle, in which a verdict and judgment were had in favour of the plaintiff below, for 122 dollars, 16 cents. The plaintiff, on the trial, offered J. Darragh as a witness to prove, that he was verbally authorized by the plaintiff to lease the house in question, from year to year, and did, in pursuance of this authority, let it to the defendant for the term of one year. The defendant objected to the evidence, on the ground, that the witness being himself the agent,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court (Tilghman, C. J. being absent,) was delivered by
Duncan, J.
John Darragh, the agent, was a competent witness to prove his own authority to let for one year, notwithstanding some loose dicta to the contrary at Nisi Prius. It is the constant practice to admit agents to be witnesses for their principals, in order tp prove contracts made by them, on the part of the principal, and every person is an agent, within the meaning of the rule, who makes a contract for another. 1 Phill. Evid. 99. 2 Dall. 300. Nor can it make any difference, that it is a contract respecting Jand. It…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ewing v. TeesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1808
- Bell v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1796
- LIVINGSTON v. SwanwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1793
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gilpin v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
- Downer v. ButtonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853
- Grant v. GillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836