Hendel v. President of the Berks
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Writ of error to the Common Pleas of Lebanon county. This case had on two former occasions been before the court; first, at May Term, 1820, when the judgment entered in favour of the defendant in the court below was reversed, (6 Serg. & Rawle, 121,) and again at May Term, 1824, when a second judgment in favour of the defendant was also reversed.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Writ of error to the Common Pleas of Lebanon county. This case had on two former occasions been before the court; first, at May Term, 1820, when the judgment entered in favour of the defendant in the court below was reversed, (6 Serg. & Rawle, 121,) and again at May Term, 1824, when a second judgment in favour of the defendant was also reversed. (11 Serg. & Rawle, 123.) In the court below it was an action of covenant brought by the president, managers, and company of the Berks and Dauphin turnpike road against William Hendel, W. J. Richards and D. Myers, executors of John Myers,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
It is my intention to notice but two points particularly, and to content myself with dismissing the other exceptions, with the single observation that they have not been sustained.
Under the plea of non est factum, when the deed offered in evidence corresponds with the instrument declared on, the only-proof that is required is, by the subscribing witness, that the defendant signed, sealed, and delivered it as his act and deed. When it does not correspond, something more is necessary. You are required to show the identity of the instrument with…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hamilton v. GlennSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845