Heart v. Hummel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, from the Common Pleas of Union county. July 29. Assumpsit for work done. Plaintiff called a witness to prove the number of days his men had been employed.
Read the full summary
Error, from the Common Pleas of Union county. July 29. Assumpsit for work done. Plaintiff called a witness to prove the number of days his men had been employed. Witness stated he worked for plaintiff as his apprentice, while he was doing the work for defendant; that he kept an account of the work done by plaintiff and his hands; entries were made in the book on the last day of each week that they were engaged in the matter; if only one day in the week, at the end of that day; that he was present every day; that he had counted but one, and on that day was twice at the house, and saw the men…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
The evidence consisted not merely of a' shop-book authenticated by the oath of the plaintiff, but of the testimony of a witness whose recollection, invigorated by the entries; enabled him to swear to the facts stated in them. Even ifhe could not, what would have prevented him from proving that he knew the facts to be accurately stated at the time, in order to introduce the entries as authenticated memoranda which may be independent evidence ? Our rule in regard to shop-books, differs from the English rule no further than to allow the oath of authentication to be made by the plaintiff instead…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. LaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
3Cited by1 opinion
- Christian Moerlein Brewing Co. v. RuschSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922