Hogeboom v. Gibbs, Sterrett & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Qrawford county: Of. October and November Term 1878, No. 314. Assumpsit by Gibbs, Sterrett and others against John 0. Hogeboom, executor of the estate of Henry Hogeboom, deceased, nonresident, impleaded with M. H. Philip and George J. Sherman. This was an appeal from a justice of the peace.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Qrawford county: Of. October and November Term 1878, No. 314. Assumpsit by Gibbs, Sterrett and others against John 0. Hogeboom, executor of the estate of Henry Hogeboom, deceased, nonresident, impleaded with M. H. Philip and George J. Sherman. This was an appeal from a justice of the peace. In the year 1867, Henry Hogeboom, of Now York, purchased with one Martin H. Philip, an interest in some land in Crawford county, Pa., upon which were several oil-wells, operated under lease from the former owner of the land. By virtue of his purchase he became entitled…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson
It has been repeatedly held that the Act of 15th April 1869 was an enabling, not a restraining statute, and that it makes no witness incompetent who would have been competent prior to its passage: McFerren v. Mont Alto Iron Co., 26 P. F. Smith 180; Scheetz v. Hanbest’s Ex’rs, 31 Id. 100; Pratt v. Patterson, Id. 114. The witness Martin II. Philip would have been incompetent under the law as it stood prior to 1869. He might not have been incompetent for all purposes upon the mere ground of his being a partner. He was called, however, for the purpose of showing the partnership. The effect of his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Heckert v. FegelySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
3Cited by2 opinions
- Billow v. Billow, LiquidatorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Kessler v. KesslerWyoming Supreme Court · 1963