Frazier v. Funk

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Frazier v. Funk

15 Serg. & Rawle 26, 1826 Pa. LEXIS 93

DecidedOctober 17, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Serg. & Rawle 26 (Frazier v. Funk) 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.

Bluebook

Frazier v. Funk, 15 Serg. & Rawle 26, 1826 Pa. LEXIS 93 (Pa. 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

Gibson, J.,

delivered the court’s opinion. (Tilghman, C. J., being indisposed during the argument, took no part in the decision.)

With reasonable caution on the part of the court, no unfairness can be practised in sending out a paper such as this. Of its consequences, no test is so good as experience, and that proves not only its fairness, but its great utility. Indeed, where accounts are submitted to a jury, it would be impossible to get along without it. It originated with mutual convenience and the agreement of parties; but it has prevailed so long and so uninterruptedly as to have grown to be a rule of practice, and as such we are not bound to disturb it. It is doubtless susceptible of abuse; and the court ought to see that what purports to be a mere statement of particulars, be so in fact, that it be subservient only to purposes of calculation, and contain no item of which at least evidence has not been given. Thus restricted, a statement of particulars will afford salutary assistance to jurors, who are seldom expert at accounts. There was therefore no error in permitting the paper to go out.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gibson, J.,

delivered the court’s opinion. (Tilghman, C. J., being indisposed during the argument, took no part in the decision.)

With reasonable caution on the part of the court, no unfairness can be practised in sending out a paper such as this. Of its consequences, no test is so good as experience, and that proves not only its fairness, but its great utility. Indeed, where accounts are submitted to a jury, it would be impossible to get along without it. It originated with mutual convenience and the agreement of parties; but it has prevailed so long and so uninterruptedly as to have grown to be a rule of practice, and as such we are not bound to disturb it. It is doubtless susceptible of abuse; and the court ought to see that what purports to be a mere statement of particulars, be so in fact, that it be subservient only to purposes of calculation, and contain no item of which at least evidence has not been given. Thus restricted, a statement of particulars will afford salutary assistance to jurors, who are seldom expert at accounts. There was therefore no error in permitting the paper to go out.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Serg. & Rawle 26, 1826 Pa. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-funk-pa-1826.