Batdorff v. Farmers' National Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 251, to January Term 1869. This was an action of assumpsit, brought May 29th 1867, by The Farmers’ National Bank of Reading against C. A. Seltzer, Augustus M. Seltzer and Zacharias Batdorff, trading as C. A. & A. M. Seltzer.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 251, to January Term 1869. This was an action of assumpsit, brought May 29th 1867, by The Farmers’ National Bank of Reading against C. A. Seltzer, Augustus M. Seltzer and Zacharias Batdorff, trading as C. A. & A. M. Seltzer. The suit was on three notes made by O. A. & A. M. Seltzer, dated in December 1860 and May 1861, amount' ing in the whole to $1252.89. The question in the case was whether Batdorff was a partner in that firm. The plaintiffs, after giving the notes in evidence, offered the deposition of James L. Nutting, in which the witness…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, May 11th 1869, by
Thompson, C. J.
The exceptions to the admission in evidence of the deposition of James L. Nutting, are, so far as anything has been disclosed, all unfounded. The first was general, to the entire deposition. Portions of it were unquestionably testimony, and this would overrule the general objection. If it were evidence for any purpose, as against a general objection, it was admissible. The 2d and 3d exceptions to it, of which the specifications of error are predicated, need not be considered. These assignments of error are totally…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PetrilloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Quon v. Furuya Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914
- Helmick v. South Union TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Commonwealth v. DanaleczkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.