Chorpenning v. Royce
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset county: Of May Term'1868, No. 18. This was an action of assumpsit by S. M. Royce against George Chorpenning, commenced October 30th 1861. The plaintiff’s cause of action was for services rendered the defendant in California. The case appears to have gone to trial on the general issue. Shell, a witness for plaintiff, testified: The defendant had a contract for carrying the mail from Salt Lake City to Placerville.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset county: Of May Term'1868, No. 18. This was an action of assumpsit by S. M. Royce against George Chorpenning, commenced October 30th 1861. The plaintiff’s cause of action was for services rendered the defendant in California. The case appears to have gone to trial on the general issue. Shell, a witness for plaintiff, testified: The defendant had a contract for carrying the mail from Salt Lake City to Placerville. Frank Chorpenning was agent of the defendant on the western end of the line, “ to attend to the transportation of the mail, and his…
1Opinion of the Court
*477The opinion of the court was delivered, May 20th 1868, by
Agnew, J.
There was clear proof of the general agency of Dr. Frank Ohorpenning for George Ohorpenning, who was a mail contractor on the route from Placerville, California, to Salt Lake City, territory of Utah. The note given by Frank for George Ohorpenning to the plaintiff below, related to the business within Frank’s agency, and was given in course of it. It was not received in evidence by the court as a note for the payment of money, but as a circumstance with the other evidence to show the fact and extent of George Chorpenning’s…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Miller v. KullesowiczSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909