Dialogue v. Hooven
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Jan. 26. Assumpsit against partners. On the trial before Sharswood, J., the plaintiff called a witness, who stated that the-goods were ordered sometimes by one and sometimes by another of the partners. The witness kept a book containing the entries, the amounts being taken from the captains of the boats (who were members of the firm, defendants) on which the lime was delivered.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Jan. 26. Assumpsit against partners. On the trial before Sharswood, J., the plaintiff called a witness, who stated that the-goods were ordered sometimes by one and sometimes by another of the partners. The witness kept a book containing the entries, the amounts being taken from the captains of the boats (who were members of the firm, defendants) on which the lime was delivered. The entries were in this form : — “1889, April 25, George Dialogue & Co., (or J. and G. Dialogue,) per Captain H. Dialogue,- h Liberty, F., 1352 bushels slaked lime,…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
The plaintiff in error, who was defendant below, excepted to the book kept by Owen B. Evans, of the delivery of the lime. Evans was in the employ of Hooven, delivering and selling lime, and gave evidence that he sold the lime in question to John, George, and Henry Dialogue, for Hooven, in 1839; the lime was brought from the kilns of Hooven in Montgomery county, and delivered into the boats of the plaintiff in error at Willow street wharf; and proved the book to be the book kept by him of the original entries he made of the lime, as it was delivered -to the indiscriminate verbal orders of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. LaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
3Cited by2 opinions
- Croushore's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Sabo v. Stefan, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1922