Legal Opinion

Smith v. Plummer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 4, 1840PublishedCited by 2 opinions

IN ERROR. Error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia, to remove the record of an action on the case brought by Everett H. Plummer against Milton Smith and Edward Brown, trading under the firm of Smith & Brown. , . The plaintiff declared in assumpsit on a promissory note drawn by the defendants in his favour, for three hundred and twenty-two dollars and fifty cents; with the common money counts. The defendants pleaded non-assumpsit and payment, &e.

Read the full summary

IN ERROR. Error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia, to remove the record of an action on the case brought by Everett H. Plummer against Milton Smith and Edward Brown, trading under the firm of Smith & Brown. , . The plaintiff declared in assumpsit on a promissory note drawn by the defendants in his favour, for three hundred and twenty-two dollars and fifty cents; with the common money counts. The defendants pleaded non-assumpsit and payment, &e. On the trial before Stroud, X, on' the 23d of November, 1835, the plaintiff proved the note, and also gave in evidence his…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gibson, C. J.

If the plaintiff below, apprised that the shoes were ordered by the defendants for Blake, delivered them on their credit, he would be concluded by his election; and, without more, he could not turn round to any one else. But might he not subsequently release the defendants by accepting Blake as their substitute; as he might have done had he not known him to be the actual purchaser. It is conceded, as it must be, that ignorance of Blake’s connexion with the purchase, would have authorised a pursuit of him as the actual debtor, and a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. Bank of WashingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
  2. Harper v. KeanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Shoninger v. PeabodySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1889
  2. Commercial Finance Co. v. DeMartellySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API