Cook v. Matlack
This text of 23 A. 1054 (Cook v. Matlack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We think the court below was right in rejecting the paper referred to in the first specification of error. It purports to be an agreement between Samuel A. Cook and Billmeyer, Nogle & Co., yet it is signed only by the said Cook. It is true it was found in the possession of the defendants, and produced by them upon notice. There was no evidence, however, that it was ever assented to by the defendants, and their possession of it implies no more than that it may have been sent to them for their consideration. Moreover, there was no evidence of the delivery of the saw logs referred to in the paper, and which would seem to be the consideration upon which the paper was based. An examination of the remaining assignments fails to disclose error.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 A. 1054, 148 Pa. 331, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-matlack-pa-1892.