Opie v. Serrill
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, in which an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered was brought to December term 1840, by Pearson Serrill, William H. Bernard and Christian W. Hahn, late trading under the firm of Serrill, Bernard & Co. against Peter Y. Opie, surviving partner of Edward Innis & Peter V. Opie, late trading under the firm of Innis & Opie.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, in which an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered was brought to December term 1840, by Pearson Serrill, William H. Bernard and Christian W. Hahn, late trading under the firm of Serrill, Bernard & Co. against Peter Y. Opie, surviving partner of Edward Innis & Peter V. Opie, late trading under the firm of Innis & Opie. The- plaintiffs gave in evidence a book-account against the defendants for $293.23. The defendant offered in evidence under a notice of special matter the plaintiffs’ answer to a bill of discovery in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
This was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The original debt was not denied, but the defendant alleged that the plaintiffs received from him on account certain claims against a third person in Nashville, Tennessee, consisting of a note to the defendants, then due, and a book-account for a small sum, transferred to the plaintiffs, both of which were received by the plaintiffs for collection ; that afterwards the plaintiffs took from the debtor at New Orleans a new note at four months for the whole amount due from him, made…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Floyd v. DayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by3 opinions
- Paul v. GrimmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Rodgers v. Studebaker Sales Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Klein, Exrx. v. May Stern Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940