Downing v. Funk
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The defendant in error who was plaintiff .below, brought this action to recover on an alleged parol promise made by the plaintiff in error to pay the debt of her brother. The declaration contained two counts.
Read the full summary
The defendant in error who was plaintiff .below, brought this action to recover on an alleged parol promise made by the plaintiff in error to pay the debt of her brother. The declaration contained two counts. The first count stated in substance, that whereas one Israel Downing at the time of the making of the promise and undertaking of the said Hannah and Sarah hereinafter mentioned, was indebted to the said Daniel Funk in the sum of one hundred and thirty-one dollars and eighty-seven cents, and thereupon afterwards, &c. “ in consideration of the premises, 'and that the said Daniel Funk at…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
Some of the principles discussed here, are not. embraced by the assignment of errors; and as they have recently been settled in Clarke v. Russel at the last term for the Western District, I shall consider but the points immediately raised on the record. These arise not so much out of principles, as their application to the evidence. The consideration laid in the first count, is forbearance for a reasonable time; and in the second, for an indefinite time. To maintain these allegations, the testimony of two witnesses was adduced; the first…
2Cited by11 opinions
- LaTanya Wyatt v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
- David Pittington v. Great Smoky Mountain Lumberjack FeudCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2018
- Traders' National Bank v. ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Thompson v. Hazelwood Savings & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Kean v. McKinseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.