Ash v. Patton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland county. This was an indebitatus assumpsit, brought by James Ash and others, administrators of James Craig, deceased, against John Patton, administrator oí John Patton, deceased. The declaration contained counts for goods sold and delivered, money had and received, money paid and expended, and money lent. The pleas were non assumpsit, payment, and non assumpsit infra sex. annos.
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland county. This was an indebitatus assumpsit, brought by James Ash and others, administrators of James Craig, deceased, against John Patton, administrator oí John Patton, deceased. The declaration contained counts for goods sold and delivered, money had and received, money paid and expended, and money lent. The pleas were non assumpsit, payment, and non assumpsit infra sex. annos. On the trial in the Court below, James Ash, the administrator of James Craig, deceased, and one of the plaintiffs in this suit, was offered as a witness on…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
This is an action on the case, by the administrators of James Craig, deceased, against the administrators of John Patton, deceased. The narr. contains counts, for goods sold and delivered, for money paid, for money lent, and for money had and received, &c.
Six bills of exceptions were taken in the course of the trial, by the counsel for the plaintiffs. One exception was to the rejection of á letter from Patton to James Ash, (one of the plaintiffs,) dated 7th June, 1795 ; and another, to the rejection of a letter from Patton to James Craig, (the intestate,) and James Ash, dated…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. WoodburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- North v. TurnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
- Birdsall v. DunnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862