Hartley v. Brookes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. This was an action by Brookes to recover the sum of fifty-three dollars twenty-four cents for work and labour done as a blacksmith, and goods sold and delivered by him to Hartley. At the trial the plaintiff’s counsel having opened that he would show that Vansant to whom the goods and work were charged, was only the agent of Hartley, produced a book which the plaintiff stated upon oath was his book of original entries.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. This was an action by Brookes to recover the sum of fifty-three dollars twenty-four cents for work and labour done as a blacksmith, and goods sold and delivered by him to Hartley. At the trial the plaintiff’s counsel having opened that he would show that Vansant to whom the goods and work were charged, was only the agent of Hartley, produced a book which the plaintiff stated upon oath was his book of original entries. The plaintiff testified as follows: “part of the entries were made by myself: some were made the first, and some the second day…
1Per curiam
There is nothing to distinguish this case from others in which such entries as these have been received. Entries transferred from a card to the book on the following day, were admitted in Patton v. Ryan; and the like, in substance, was done in Ingraham v. Bockius. In Kessler v. M‘Conachy, no more was ruled than that the transfer was too late at the expiration of nearly two weeks. The objection that it was made in this instance by a third person, has no greater force. The entries might have been made originally by a clerk; and whether by the verbal instructions or written memo*191randa of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Schettler v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1866
- Redlich v. BauerleeIllinois Supreme Court · 1880