Taylor v. Gitt
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Dauphin. Daniel Gitt was the holder of a note sealed by Boyer et al., payable January 1st, 1848. On the 4th of May, 1847, he assigned it “for value received” to Pelouze. Jos. Gitt had previously endorsed it. On the 8th of May, Pelouze assigned it to Taylor et al. An action was brought in the name of the obligee, to the use of Taylor, and judgment recovered.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Dauphin. Daniel Gitt was the holder of a note sealed by Boyer et al., payable January 1st, 1848. On the 4th of May, 1847, he assigned it “for value received” to Pelouze. Jos. Gitt had previously endorsed it. On the 8th of May, Pelouze assigned it to Taylor et al. An action was brought in the name of the obligee, to the use of Taylor, and judgment recovered. On affidavit, a feigned issue was directed to try whether Daniel Gitt (plaintiff) or Taylor et al. (defendants), were entitled to the money. On the trial, Jos. Gitt, for the plaintiff (under exception),…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
I have failed to perceive any evidence of the slightest interest in Joseph S. Gitt, when he was offered and received as a witness. There was no proof that he was a partner of his father, and if such was subsequently given, this did not make the prior action of the court wrong. The defendants should have asked an instruction to the jury to discard the testimony, if they believed him interested. No such instruction was prayed, and, indeed, it is more than questionable whether sufficient ground, was laid for it.
The witness frankly represented himself as the agent of his father in making his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wheeler v. HughesSupreme Court of the United States · 1776
- Metzgar ex rel. Uhler v. MetzgarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Orphans' Court v. WoodburnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Charles Rettig & Son v. BeckerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899