Featherman's Administrator v. Miller
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Oommon Pleas of Hortllarnptom county. These were actions of assumpsit, brought by Jacob A. Feath-erman, administrator, &o., of Abraham Featherman, deceased, against Depue S. Miller.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Oommon Pleas of Hortllarnptom county. These were actions of assumpsit, brought by Jacob A. Feath-erman, administrator, &o., of Abraham Featherman, deceased, against Depue S. Miller. The first was brought to recover the balance of a promissory note, dated April 1st 1848, drawn by Depue S. Miller to Abraham Featherman, payable in one year with interest, for $606.07, upon which a payment on account of $194 was endorsed April 9th 1850. The second was brought to recover the amount of a bill single, dated April 10th 1849, executed by Depue S. Miller in favour of Abraham Featherman,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court ivas delivered,
by'
THOMPSON, J.
On the trial of these cases, the plaintiff in the first place, put in evidence the two notes for which the suits were brought, and rested. Then the defendant, under his plea of payment, gave in evidence the receipt of Abraham Eeatherman, dated the 7th of April 1851, acknowledging the payment to him of $1050, and also rested. About this receipt was the whole controversy in the case, the defendant insisting on its application in discharge of the notes pro tanto, and the plaintiff denying it. If the pleading had been special, this would have…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Yarborough v. MossSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Bank of Woodstock v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853