Clifford v. Hicks

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Clifford v. Hicks

95 Pa. Super. 182, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 13, 1928

DocketAppeal 367

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 95 Pa. Super. 182 (Clifford v. Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clifford v. Hicks, 95 Pa. Super. 182, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3 (Pa. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

This was an action of assumpsit on a book account. It was tried by the court without a jury. The trial judge refused to admit in evidence the copy of the book account attached to the statement of claim. The offer was as follows: “I offer in evidence the book account, accompanying the statement of claim and rest.” The counsel for defendant stated, “That is objected to because we deny the prices were reasonable and demand proof of the same.” The court sustained the objection and no further proof being submitted by the plaintiff, entered a non-suit.

It will be noticed there is no general objection to the admissibility of the book account. If that had been made, it would have been easily overcome, for defendant’s affidavit of defense asserted the payment of the account and gave no proper reply to the items contained therein. The objection is specifically directed to the prices. If the charges were not reasonable, it was a matter of defense. The book account was self-sustaining and was prima facie evidence of the sale and delivery of the article's and of their prices. Harlocker v. Gertner, 4 Clark, 277; Ducoign v. Sehreppel, 1 Yates, 347; Molony v. Benners, 3 Grant’s Cases, 233. This being so, the plaintiff was not required to offer proof that the prices were reasonable.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

This was an action of assumpsit on a book account. It was tried by the court without a jury. The trial judge refused to admit in evidence the copy of the book account attached to the statement of claim. The offer was as follows: “I offer in evidence the book account, accompanying the statement of claim and rest.” The counsel for defendant stated, “That is objected to because we deny the prices were reasonable and demand proof of the same.” The court sustained the objection and no further proof being submitted by the plaintiff, entered a non-suit.

It will be noticed there is no general objection to the admissibility of the book account. If that had been made, it would have been easily overcome, for defendant’s affidavit of defense asserted the payment of the account and gave no proper reply to the items contained therein. The objection is specifically directed to the prices. If the charges were not reasonable, it was a matter of defense. The book account was self-sustaining and was prima facie evidence of the sale and delivery of the article's and of their prices. Harlocker v. Gertner, 4 Clark, 277; Ducoign v. Sehreppel, 1 Yates, 347; Molony v. Benners, 3 Grant’s Cases, 233. This being so, the plaintiff was not required to offer proof that the prices were reasonable.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 Pa. Super. 182, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-v-hicks-pasuperct-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack