Legal Opinion

Harris v. Smith

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 4, 1817PublishedCited by 7 opinions

In Error. ERROR to the District Court of the city and county of J Philadelphia. brought an action of replevin against Harris, for fifteen boxes of liquorice paste ; and, on ^ tr*aí» case was as follows. The liquorice paste belonged to Mr. Hinkle of Boston, who transmitted it to Silas' E. Weir of Philadelphia, auctioneer, with directions to sell' it at auction. It was accordingly put up at auction, and sold-on the 23d August, 1812, to the defendant, Harris.

Read the full summary

In Error. ERROR to the District Court of the city and county of J Philadelphia. brought an action of replevin against Harris, for fifteen boxes of liquorice paste ; and, on ^ tr*aí» case was as follows. The liquorice paste belonged to Mr. Hinkle of Boston, who transmitted it to Silas' E. Weir of Philadelphia, auctioneer, with directions to sell' it at auction. It was accordingly put up at auction, and sold-on the 23d August, 1812, to the defendant, Harris. The terms of sale, were approved endorsed notes, at sixty days. Weir, the auctioneer, after the sale, put the liquorice into the hands of…

1Opinion of the Court

Gibson J.

The plaintiff in error objects to the proceedings below, that Silas E. Weir, who was admitted to be' sworn. as a witness; was interested and incompetent; and that there is. error in the charge of the Court.

It is certain that Weir, with whom the goods had been deposited as an auctioneer, was liable to Hinkle, and it is probable the money recovered in this suit will be paid directly into his hands : so far his credibility is directly affected. But has he a vestedJegal interest in what may be recovered? I think not. Weir% an auctioneer, having sold .the goods for which this suit is…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Ward v. ShawNew York Supreme Court · 1831
  2. Miller v. AdsitCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
  3. Chapman v. SearleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1825
  4. Gambling v. ReadTennessee Supreme Court · 1838
  5. Gambling v. ReadTennessee Supreme Court · 1838

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API