Hobart v. McCoy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Northumberland county. July 29. In assumpsit, the plaintiff having proved a note drawn by defendant, and endorsed by himself, offered the deposition of Small, taken in a previous suit between the same parties. It was objected to, because not taken in the present suit, and because the notes referred to were not produced or identified.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Northumberland county. July 29. In assumpsit, the plaintiff having proved a note drawn by defendant, and endorsed by himself, offered the deposition of Small, taken in a previous suit between the same parties. It was objected to, because not taken in the present suit, and because the notes referred to were not produced or identified. It was proved that in the former suit between the same parties, a note described in the deposition, as presently stated, by the names of the parties, date, time, and amount corresponding with the one given in evidence, was…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
There is no valid objection, that we can perceive, to the admission of the deposition of George H. Small. For, although taken in another cause, it is between the same parties, and for the same matter, viz., the note now in dispute. In the action of account render, this item, among others, was claimed as money advanced by McCoy for a partnership, which it was alleged, and afterwards conceded, to have existed, between McCoy and Hobart, It, therefore, comes within the words and spirit of the act of the 28th March, 1814, an act further to regulate proceeding in courts of justice. But it is said…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Petriken v. CollierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844