Clark v. Sanderson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. r ¡j sHIS was an action of assumpsit in the Common Pleas JL Qf Cumberland, against the executor of Robert Sander- . , , son, upon a promise by the testator to pay the debt ot his gon wbich was due upon a single bill to Clark the testator 1 1 of theplaintiff.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. r ¡j sHIS was an action of assumpsit in the Common Pleas JL Qf Cumberland, against the executor of Robert Sander- . , , son, upon a promise by the testator to pay the debt ot his gon wbich was due upon a single bill to Clark the testator 1 1 of theplaintiff. If the subscribing witness to a bond is out oj the jurisdiction of the court, and upon diligent inquiry no per-within the jurisdiction who can prove lus handwriting, the handwriting of be^iroved.1 s>u? whether if the the witness is proved, that of ought not to be ;i,so' The declaration set out the single bill; and upon the trial…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
Questions, like that now before us, have occurred at Nisi Prius, but have never before been brought into this court. The law has not been settled, and I am glad that an opportunity is offered, of reducing it to certainty. The rule which requires that a bond should be proved by the subscribing witness is founded in reason'; because he is the person whom both parties have chosen to bear testimony to the contract. But the nature of the thing admits of very powerful evidence, independent of the subscribing witness. Proof of his handwriting, in case he is out of the way, and proof of…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Landers v. BoltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- McVicker v. ConkleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Wilbur v. SeldenNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Magill v. KauffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818
- Watts v. KilburnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.