Pratt & Reath v. H. M. Richards Jewelry Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 7, to July Term 1870. This was an action of debt, brought April 29th 1868, by the H. M. Richards Jewelry Company against Dundass T. Pratt and Benjamin B. Reath, trading as Pratt & Reath, to recover 15 months’ rent of a room in the building No. 173 Broadway, New York.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 7, to July Term 1870. This was an action of debt, brought April 29th 1868, by the H. M. Richards Jewelry Company against Dundass T. Pratt and Benjamin B. Reath, trading as Pratt & Reath, to recover 15 months’ rent of a room in the building No. 173 Broadway, New York. On the 24th of September 1852, James E. Cooley leased to-H. M. Richards the four stories above the first story of the above building, with the stairway and passage through the first story, for nine years and six months from November 1852, at a rent of $4500, payable quarterly. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, October 9th 1871, by
Thompson, C. J.
It is not within the province of a court to say whether a given offer would actually prove the fact it was offered to prove, provided its tendency be to prove the fact. If it, with other facts in the case, tend to establish a result matei’ial to be established by the party offering it, it should be admitted, and go to the jury. It is for them to pass on it under instructions from the court. Bespondeant facto jur atores.
In the case in hand the letters of the defendants transmitted by mail to their landlord, H. M.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Christman v. MartinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Rohbock v. McCargoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Crane Iron Works v. Emanuel Slag Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1928
- McCarthy v. MurraySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910