Parke v. Bird
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from Common Pleas of Northumberland county. July 21. Assumpsit against Parke and others, for work done on lands, of which defendants were tenants in common, in which Parke alone was summoned, and appealed from the judgment of the justice. On the trial before Anthony, President J., alter the plaintiff had proved the cause of action, defendant called G. Heckert, one of the defendants, who was not served with process, and was released by defendant Parke.
Read the full summary
In error from Common Pleas of Northumberland county. July 21. Assumpsit against Parke and others, for work done on lands, of which defendants were tenants in common, in which Parke alone was summoned, and appealed from the judgment of the justice. On the trial before Anthony, President J., alter the plaintiff had proved the cause of action, defendant called G. Heckert, one of the defendants, who was not served with process, and was released by defendant Parke. The rejection of his testimony constitutes the . first bill of exception. He then offered two receipts by two of the plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
The deposition of Pleckert was properly overruled, on the ground of public policy. The point is virtually decided in Wolf v. Fink, 1 Barr, 439. It is true that there the process was served, here it was not; but the principle on which Wolf and Fink was ruled, is that a person, who is a party to the suit at the impetration of the writ, cannot be a witness. The court say, that a party *362cannot be allowed to be a witness, by avoiding service of the writ. In every essential particular the cases are the same.
This is a joint suit, therefore the receipt of one for work done before the partnership, as…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Burke v. BurkeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Barr v. Glass, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1922