Douglass v. Beam
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
E* The plaintiffs below declared in debt upon a bond dated t]ie twentieth da}- of May -1799. By the short entries on the t J ' . doequet, the defendants craved “ oyer of the writ and bond, a anq a special imparlance,” and afterwards pleaded u pay- “ ment, with leave togive special matter m evidence, upon which plea issue was taken, 1 , Upon the trial the plaintiffs produced a bond dated the twentiethey/it day of May 1799, to the reading of which m evidence the defendants…
Read the full summary
E* The plaintiffs below declared in debt upon a bond dated t]ie twentieth da}- of May -1799. By the short entries on the t J ' . doequet, the defendants craved “ oyer of the writ and bond, a anq a special imparlance,” and afterwards pleaded u pay- “ ment, with leave togive special matter m evidence, upon which plea issue was taken, 1 , Upon the trial the plaintiffs produced a bond dated the twentiethey/it day of May 1799, to the reading of which m evidence the defendants objected upon the ground of the ^ut the Court, thinking- the word eght insensible,’ admitted the evidence, and, at the…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
after stating the case, delivered his Opinion as follows:
When the defendants had oyer of the bond, they might have taken advantage by demurrer, of any material variance between the declaration and the bond; but they cannot take such advantage on a writ of error. The point however is, whether the bond ought to have been read in evidence. The Court of Common Pleas were of opinion that there was no variance, because the word eght was insensible, and should be rejected. If the case rested solely on that, I will not give a positive opinion how the law would be. Courts have gone a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Newlin v. PalmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
- Buckwalter v. United StatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
- Dillman v. SchultzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
- Haley v. LongTennessee Supreme Court · 1823