Farmers' Bank v. Whitehill
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On the return of the record of this case, accompanied by two bills of exceptions to evidence, from the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, it appeared that it was an action brought by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendant in error, James White-hill, on a promissory note of which the latter was an indorser.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On the return of the record of this case, accompanied by two bills of exceptions to evidence, from the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, it appeared that it was an action brought by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendant in error, James White-hill, on a promissory note of which the latter was an indorser. One of the principal subjects of controversy, on the trial, related to proof of demand of payment on the drawer, and notice of non-payment to the defendant. The protest was produced and proved by the notary, who also swore that he never served, notices himself in…
1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.
The general objection to the deposition of John Buck is that it is in the nature of hearsay evidence, and that the defendant had no opportunity of cross examination; and unless there has been a relaxation of, and departure from the rules of evidence established for ages, the deposition, or rather ex parte affidavit, was properly overruled. The rulesof evidence are of great importance, and a departure from them without necessity, or unless expediency or general convenience require a modification adapted to the actual business and transactions of life, would endanger private as well as public…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Nicholls v. WebbSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Smith v. LaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
- Philadelphia Bank v. OfficerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824