Arthur v. James
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the assignees of James, Iszard & Co., against Arthur, Burnham & Co., to recover $687.11, for certain glass jars alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiffs to the defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the assignees of James, Iszard & Co., against Arthur, Burnham & Co., to recover $687.11, for certain glass jars alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiffs to the defendants. On the trial in the court below, the plaintiffs offered in evidence the following letter : — r Philadelphia, Jan. 17, 1856. Mr. Samuel James, Dear Sir: We find, in going over the amount of glass on hand, that is useless, upwards of twenty boxes. That our account would show a balance of $142 in your favour. There has been…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Lewis, C. J.
It is the policy of the law to facilitate the settlement of controversies, and therefore an offer to pay a sum of money to compromise a dispute, is not admissible in evidence to prove that the sum offered was admitted to be due. But it is also the object of the law of evidence to ascertain the truth, and therefore the distinct admission of a fact in a letter or in conversation, is not to be excluded because it is accompanied by an offer to compromise the suit. Proposals made while the compromise is on the carpet, do not bind, but…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hartford Bridge Co. v. GrangerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- Smith v. GilmanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1826
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rochester MacHine Corp. v. Mulach Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Mannella v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Rabinowitz v. SilvermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Bascom v. Danville Stove & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Rochester MacHine Corp. v. Mulach Steel Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.