Irvine v. Buckaloe
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. ON error to the Court of Comnjpn Pleas of JVarren county, it appeared from the bill of exceptions accompanying the record, that Isaac Buckaloe, the defendant in error, brought an action against the plaintiff in error, Callender Irvine, for goods sold, work • and labour, and-money had and received; to which the defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and payment.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. ON error to the Court of Comnjpn Pleas of JVarren county, it appeared from the bill of exceptions accompanying the record, that Isaac Buckaloe, the defendant in error, brought an action against the plaintiff in error, Callender Irvine, for goods sold, work • and labour, and-money had and received; to which the defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and payment. On the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence a receipt, in these words: ( Signed, Moore & Irvine,” The reading of this receipt being objected to, the plaintiff gave in evidence the deposition of Nathan Howard, which stated, that…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
G-ibsoN, J.
The points are miserably stated in this bill of exceptions; but the case appears to be this: At some stage of the cause, the plaintiff offered in evidence, a receipt for grain delivered as the share of the defendant, which was signed “ Moore & Irvine,” one of whom {Moore) was alleged to have been the agent of the defendant; to prove which, a wilfiess was called, who testified he had done business with Moore as the agent of the defendant, one or two years after the date of the receipt; and that the defendant, about the same time, had told him…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bracken v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842