Rhoads v. Gaul
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
On a writ of error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia., it appeared, that this suit was brought by the defendants in error, Martin and William Gaul, surviving partners of the firm of Frederick Gaul Sons, against the plaintiff in error, Daniel J. Rhoads, for goods sold and delivered, to which the defendant below pleaded non assumpsit and payment.
Read the full summary
On a writ of error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia., it appeared, that this suit was brought by the defendants in error, Martin and William Gaul, surviving partners of the firm of Frederick Gaul Sons, against the plaintiff in error, Daniel J. Rhoads, for goods sold and delivered, to which the defendant below pleaded non assumpsit and payment. From the bill of exceptions returned with the record it appeared, that on the trial the plaintiffs, preparatory to offering in evidence their book of original entries, called a witness who swore that the book produced was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
A shop book is competent as a registry of the sales made in the course of the business; and, in the nature of things, no true registry can be made of a fact that has not happened. If it were registered as having already happened, under a confident expectation that it would happen, the registry was false when it was made, and being false then, it is false still. The entries, therefore, ought to be made at the delivery of the goods, or immediately afterwards; and this is what is meant in Curren v. Crawford, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 3, by saying they…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sterrett v. BullSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1808
- Rogers v. OldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
- Curren v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818
3Cited by1 opinion
- Keim v. RushSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843