Ulrich v. Hower
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 382, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, A. D. Hower, from judgment of C. P. Northumberland Co., Dee. T., 1891, No. 9, on verdict for plaintiff, Bruce Ulrich. Appeal from justice of peace. Pleas, non assumpsit, payment and set-off. At the trial, before Savid&e, P. J., it appeared that plaintiff was employed by defendant to drive a team.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 382, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, A. D. Hower, from judgment of C. P. Northumberland Co., Dee. T., 1891, No. 9, on verdict for plaintiff, Bruce Ulrich. Appeal from justice of peace. Pleas, non assumpsit, payment and set-off. At the trial, before Savid&e, P. J., it appeared that plaintiff was employed by defendant to drive a team. Plaintiff continued his employment for several months, when he was discharged by defendant on the ground of drunkenness and unfaithfulness. It appeared from the evidence that on July 27,1891, there was a balance of about $41.00 due for services rendered.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The exclusion of the testimony of Ritter as to the assignment to him of plaintiff’s claim was error. What was proposed to be proved was not a verbal acceptance of a bill of exchange, draft, or order for the payment of money, which the act of May 10, 1881, P. L. 17, requires tobe in writing, but an assignment to a creditor by a debtor of a claim for money due the latter by a third person. It is not entirely clear that it is within the statute at all, but whether it is or not, the objection can only be raised by the acceptor for whose benefit the statute was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Armour v. SeixasWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Moeser v. SchneiderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Erickson v. InmanOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Lind v. HurdSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Malickson v. Louis J. Bergdoll Motor Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913