Etter v. Bailey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. Trover for certain stoves received by Etter for plaintiff, and sold by him. The first question was the competency of Vanhorn as a witness for plaintiff.- It was proved that Bailey and Updegrove had recovered a judgment against Vanhorn and another; and that, upon their delivering the stoves now in question to Etter, as security or in satisfaction of the debt, Bailey had stayed further proceedings.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. Trover for certain stoves received by Etter for plaintiff, and sold by him. The first question was the competency of Vanhorn as a witness for plaintiff.- It was proved that Bailey and Updegrove had recovered a judgment against Vanhorn and another; and that, upon their delivering the stoves now in question to Etter, as security or in satisfaction of the debt, Bailey had stayed further proceedings. There was also evidence that Bailey had admitted the receipt of the stoves in satisfaction; and the court then admitted Vanhorn to prove the delivery…
1Per curiam
The action is brought against the plaintiff’s agent, on the ground that he had received the stoves for the plaintiff, either as satisfaction of the debt due by the witness or as collateral security for it; and the fact that he had received them, either as the one or the other, was not denied. It was proved, even by the defendant’s own witness to the question of interest. But if the defendant sold them either for the plaintiff or on his own account, the debt was so far discharged; and the debtor would be called in for no more than the residue of it. In all besides, therefore, he was a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Kreuer v. Union National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Louis Bernstein v. J.M. HinemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925