Davis v. McGrath
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. March 16. Assumpsit for goods sold, one of the items of plaintiff’s account being a coat for $40. Plea, that after the making of the promise, defendant delivered an order drawn by one Morris, requesting plaintiff to make defendant a coat, price $40, and charge it to Morris, which was accepted by plaintiff, and this amount exceeded the balance due, and which defendant offered to set off.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. March 16. Assumpsit for goods sold, one of the items of plaintiff’s account being a coat for $40. Plea, that after the making of the promise, defendant delivered an order drawn by one Morris, requesting plaintiff to make defendant a coat, price $40, and charge it to Morris, which was accepted by plaintiff, and this amount exceeded the balance due, and which defendant offered to set off. On the trial, the plaintiff proved the sale of the goods, and defendant proved the order and acceptance, stated in his plea. Plaintiff then called Morris, who…
1Opinion of the CourtBurl, J.
Did the case, as we have it, turn upon the question whether a coat had been furnished by the plaintiffs to the defendant, in pursuance of the order, and afterwards charged to the latter as a subsisting debt, the witness would, certainly, have been incompetent to impeach the order. In that event he would have been directly interested in defeating it as a means of dis-. charging the defendant, since the success of the latter must have placed the witness in the relation of debtor to the plaintiffs, for the price of the article ordered, by force of his special undertaking, upon the face of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Atkinson v. ManksNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by1 opinion
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. McLaurinMississippi Supreme Court · 1914