TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Standley v. Weaver

Onesephorus Standley and Nathaniel Standley, executors of Andrew Standley, against Jacob Weaver and William Kenly, executors of David Everhart

Standley v. Weaver, 2 Yeates 256 (1797)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1797
Citations
2 Yeates 256
Summary
The defendants proved the body of the receipt and the name of the subscribing witness to be the hand writing of Moses Hill, who died in 1785 or 1786 ; and that Peter Sommers had purchased the lease of the island from the defendant’s testator, respecting the rent whereof the arbitration had taken place. It was then proposed to examine William Kenly, one of the defendants, when and where he found the receipt in question ; which was excepted to, on the ground of interest. But the court ruled, that a party interested may be a witness to preve a collateral fact, and a defendant’s executor may be sworn to show when and where he discovered a paper offered in evidence, and this very point has been determined so in this court. Kenly was sworn accordingly, and declared that he found the receipt in an old pocket book contained in a gin case, formerly the property of the said Sommers, a few months after his death, and to whom he was an executor. The receipt was read to the jury. The plaintiffs produced a witness well acquainted with the hand-writing of Andrew Standley, who swore that in his opinion, the signature to the receipt was not written by the said Standley ; but the jury found a verdict for the defendants.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

A defendant executor may be a witness to prove when and where he found a paper offered in evidence.

Debt sur arbitration bond, executed by the defendant’s testator, to the plaintiff’s testator. Plea payment, with leave to give the special matters in evidence.

The arbitrators had awarded on the 13th February 1783, 120/. to be paid by Everhart to Standley ; and the only question was, whether a receipt for that sum on the 2d March 1783, by the hands of Peter Sommers, whereto one Moses Hill was a witness; was genuine or not.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1840–1841: 118402026peak 1840 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bellas v. M'Carty10 Watts 13 (1840) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Bellas v. M'Carty10 Watts 13 (1840) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list