Bowen v. De Lattre
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit brought by Henry De Lattre against John T. Bowen, upon two promissory notes alleged to have been made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit brought by Henry De Lattre against John T. Bowen, upon two promissory notes alleged to have been made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff tiled copies of the notes with an affidavit as follows: “New York, October 31st, 1836. Sixty days after date, I promise to pay to Henry De Lattre or order, the sum of one hundred dollars, value received. $100 00. J. T. Bowen.” ■ “New York, October 31st, 1836. Sixty days after date, I promise to pay to Plenry De Lattre, the sum of ten…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
As the parties to a suit are excluded from being witnesses, on account of their interest, declarations made by them are evidence, and in some instances, of the strongest kind. Of the latter description, :the case before us furnishes a striking example. The suit is brought by the payee on two promissory notes, against the maker. The defendant pleads non-assumpsit, and on the trial requires proof of the execution of the notes; and the plaintiff not having a witness at hand competent to prove the execution, offers in evidence for that purpose…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jackson v. StetsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
3Cited by5 opinions
- Thomas v. BradySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Union Casualty & Surety Co. v. GrayCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1902
- Stockwell v. LoecherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Abrams v. UenkingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Stewart v. GleasonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903