Keller v. Leib
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN EKROK,- In error to the District Court for- the city and county of Lancaster. This was a scire facias post annum et diem, brought by the plaintiff in error, who-was also plaintiff below, to revive a judgment, which had been entered in the common pleas, at the suit- of John Gest, &c. against Jacob Leib.- The original judgment was entered on the 10th April, 1815, and the judgment which was sought to he revived by this scire facias, was entered to revive that judgment' on…
Read the full summary
IN EKROK,- In error to the District Court for- the city and county of Lancaster. This was a scire facias post annum et diem, brought by the plaintiff in error, who-was also plaintiff below, to revive a judgment, which had been entered in the common pleas, at the suit- of John Gest, &c. against Jacob Leib.- The original judgment was entered on the 10th April, 1815, and the judgment which was sought to he revived by this scire facias, was entered to revive that judgment' on the 22d November, 1819. Jacob. Leib, on the 2d May, 1818,conveyed by deed to Christian Stehman,- the terre-tenant, and his…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Huston, J.,
(who recapitulated the facts of the case.) — As to the first bill we see no difficulty. In New York, where the courts of *222;law are strict in rejecting parol evidence where there is written; yet there, evidence is constantly admitted to explain a receipt for 'money, and they have permitted a party to shew, that although a .receipt was given in full for goods sold, yet in fact there was no money paid, but a note of a third person'given, which was to be in full if paid. Our courts have done the same thing, Leese v. James, 10 Serg. & Rawle, 314.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Troup v. WoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
- Kuhn v. NorthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823