Richabaugh v. Dugan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. March 8. Scire facias on a mechanic’s claim against Richabaugh, owner, and Hoopes, contractor. The defendant pleaded Payment: 2. That Hoopes was not contractor as stated in the sci. fa. 3. That the claim does not state the kind and amount of work done, and materials furnished, or the time when,, &c.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. March 8. Scire facias on a mechanic’s claim against Richabaugh, owner, and Hoopes, contractor. The defendant pleaded Payment: 2. That Hoopes was not contractor as stated in the sci. fa. 3. That the claim does not state the kind and amount of work done, and materials furnished, or the time when,, &c. The claim was for $67 82, against, &c., whereof Thomas C. Hoopes is contractor, &c., for “ painting done in and about the erection and construction of the said building, and the necessary materials provided therefor, from the 1st of April, 1842, to…
1Opinion of the Court
Coulter, J.,
(after stating the evidence rejected under the plea of payment.) — An opinion, it would seem, has prevailed, and with the sanction of high names, that under the plea of payment alone nothing but direct payment in money can be given in evidence. But the law was never so established, even in England. Their books contain many cases where it was held that under the plea of payment the defendant might give in evidence the delivery of the notes of a private banker, or notes' of individuals which had been accepted by the creditor ^n satisfaction of his debt: Williams v. Smith, 2 Barn. &…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Buddicum v. KirkSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
- Musgrove v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1787
- Hamilton v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Meyers Co. v. RaynoldsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1917