Mckinley v. O'Keson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Juniata. The plaintiff" in this case having given in evidence a judgment against the defendant, who was a certified bankrupt, proved by Shirlock that he had a conversation with defendant relating to this judgment, for which the witness’s father was security to the plaintiff; that he said to defendant — people said his father would have to pay it; to which defendant replied, the account was just except the price of one sheep, for which he had…
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Juniata. The plaintiff" in this case having given in evidence a judgment against the defendant, who was a certified bankrupt, proved by Shirlock that he had a conversation with defendant relating to this judgment, for which the witness’s father was security to the plaintiff; that he said to defendant — people said his father would have to pay it; to which defendant replied, the account was just except the price of one sheep, for which he had no credit, and he would pay it. Another witness proved he also had had a conversation with defendant, who said he would…
1Per curiam
When there is a moral obligation as a consideration, a recognition of the debt as an existing one, for any other purpose than to evade the statute of limitations, is favourably received as evidence of a promise to pay. Can it be material to whom, or before whom, it is made ? In Hassinger v. Solms, 5 Serg. & Rawle, 48, the acknowledgment was made in the presence of one who had no direct interest in the question, yet it was held to be a binding promise. It is true the chief justice put it on the footing of a ratification of the act of the defendant’s agent as a substitute for previous…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lee v. WilcocksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819