Cook v. Ashmead
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
IN this case the judge, on the trial, received in evidence the plaintiff’s book of original entries, to prove goods sold and delivered, but reserved the point of its admissibility, objection having been made by the defendant, who obtained this rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. It appeared that the entries were transferred from a memorandum-book, some on the first, some on the second, and others on the third day after the entry in the memorandum-book.
Read the full summary
IN this case the judge, on the trial, received in evidence the plaintiff’s book of original entries, to prove goods sold and delivered, but reserved the point of its admissibility, objection having been made by the defendant, who obtained this rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. It appeared that the entries were transferred from a memorandum-book, some on the first, some on the second, and others on the third day after the entry in the memorandum-book. The counsel cited, 1 Rawle 373, 435; 5 Watts 432; 4 Rawle 404 : 2 Watts 347, 451; 4 S. & R. 3; 9 S. & R. 285 ; 10 S. R.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.—
The tendency of the decisions in Pennsylvania is rather to limit than enlarge the scope of the rule, allowing shop-books as evidence for the plaintiff. Thus in Forsythe v. Norcross, (5 Watts 432,) the Supreme Court, although admitting that an entry on a card or slate, was but a memorandum preparatory to more permanent evidence, yet said it must be perfected at or near the time, and that entries transferred, ought in every instan ce to be so at hast in the course of the day succeeding that of the entry by way of memorandum.
Rule absolute.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Forsythe v. NorcrossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836