Conrad v. Farrow
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Mleghany county. William Conrad against John Farrow; Replevin. The plaintiff, in order to enable him to give in evidence a bill of sale of the property in dispute, to which Joseph Turner and Samuel Bennett were witnesses, gave the following evidence': Moses Brawdy, sworn. — I have had this subpoena in my hands for about eight days. I have made inquiry and cannot find where either Samuel Bennett or Joseph Turner resides.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Mleghany county. William Conrad against John Farrow; Replevin. The plaintiff, in order to enable him to give in evidence a bill of sale of the property in dispute, to which Joseph Turner and Samuel Bennett were witnesses, gave the following evidence': Moses Brawdy, sworn. — I have had this subpoena in my hands for about eight days. I have made inquiry and cannot find where either Samuel Bennett or Joseph Turner resides. I had a subpoena for them some courts ago in this case. 1 then made inquiries for them and was told at the Exchange, that a person of the name of…
1Per curiam
The rule of the common law, which prefers evidence of hand-writing to confession, seems to have been carried to an extreme. Dndoubtedly nothing ought tobe neglected, which affords a reasonable hope of procuring the testimony of the subscribing witnesses, who are supposed to know the minutest particulars of the act of execution; but the rule being satisfied in that respect, there seems to be no reason why the confession of the party should be deemed secondary to evidence of handwriting. As regards endeavours to procure the subscribing witnesses, the rule is not to be strained beyond the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Irwin v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859