Depue v. Place
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Pike. March 20. Depue brought an action to the use of M. Depue, on a note alleged to have been signed by Place. The defendant alleged the signature was a forgery.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Pike. March 20. Depue brought an action to the use of M. Depue, on a note alleged to have been signed by Place. The defendant alleged the signature was a forgery. The note at the time suit was brought belonged to the legal plaintiff, and his varying declarations of the consideration for the note and the mode he obtained it were proved, hut whether made after suit brought, and consequently after the transfer of the note, could not he ascertained from the paper hook, and the refusal to rule them out was the first exception. Among other things he said it was…
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
There are four bills of exception to evidence, which involve none of the arcana or mysteries of this profession, or any recondite principles of law, but on which quite a galaxy of cases have been brought to bear.
The proposition with which the plaintiff commences is true, unquestionably true, viz. that the declarations of the payee in a note are not evidence after he has parted with his interest so as to prejudice. But then it is.indispensable to establish that the declarations were made after the transfer. In the case before us, there was some evidence that the declarations in the bill of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- M'Corkle v. BinnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
- Baker v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Farmer's Bank v. WhitehillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rauenzahn v. SigmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956