Sigfried v. Levan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. FROM the record of this case, which was returned on a writ of error to- Lehigh county, it appeared that it was an action of debt on a bond for 4400 dollars, brought by Joseph Sigfried, the plaintiff in error, against Abraham and Joseph Levan.
Read the full summary
In Error. FROM the record of this case, which was returned on a writ of error to- Lehigh county, it appeared that it was an action of debt on a bond for 4400 dollars, brought by Joseph Sigfried, the plaintiff in error, against Abraham and Joseph Levan. The writ was returned “ summoned” as to the latter, and “ nihil” as to the former. 1’he plea was non est factum. t On the trial the plaintifT called Peter Levan as a witness, who swore that his name was subscribed as a witness to the bond; that he did not see Joseph Levan sign it; it was signed before his name was put to it; that the signature…
1Opinion of the Court
Duncan J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was an action of debt on-bond. The plea, non est factum. The plaintiff gave evidence, as stated in the bill of exceptions, and then offered 'the bond, (of which he had made profert and given oyer) to the jury in evidence. This ■was objected to, and the Court sustained the objection, and would not suffer the bond to be read in evidence. The exception to be considered is to this opinion of the Court.
The general rule is, that where any person claims by a deed, in the pleading he ought to make a profert of it to the Court; and when oyer is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pigott v. HollowaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1808
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BrooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Mott v. DoughtyNew York Supreme Court · 1800
- Wiley v. MoorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
- Ogle v. GrahamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830
- Rhea v. Gibson's ex'orSupreme Court of Virginia · 1853