Norman v. Norman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Action for goods sold and delivered. Harvey only was taken on the capias. David Norman was returned non est inventus by tbe sheriff, but a few days afterwards paid the plaintiff one moiety of his demand. The plaintiff has since been discharged by the insolvent act. Harvey disputed the quantum of the plaintiff’s debt. The plaintiff called the other defendant Norman to prove a settlement made between them and acquiesced in.
Read the full summary
Action for goods sold and delivered. Harvey only was taken on the capias. David Norman was returned non est inventus by tbe sheriff, but a few days afterwards paid the plaintiff one moiety of his demand. The plaintiff has since been discharged by the insolvent act. Harvey disputed the quantum of the plaintiff’s debt. The plaintiff called the other defendant Norman to prove a settlement made between them and acquiesced in. He was objected to by Harvey as interested in the event of the cause.
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
David Norman cannot be compelled to give evidence on the part of the plaintiff, but he may loe sworn, if he has no objection thereto. He is produced to charge the partnership, and therefore swears against his own interest. If the plaintiff shall recover his demand against Harvey, the same will be debited against the witness, who will be obliged to pay his proportion thereof on a settlement of the pertnership accounts.
He was sworn accordingly; and at length it was agreed to withdraw a juror; and refer the account to the first three jurors on the list, who reported' the sum of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Billow v. Billow, LiquidatorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Solms v. McCullochSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
- Gibbs v. BryantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1822