Hartley v. Brookes
This text of 6 Whart. 189 (Hartley v. Brookes) 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
There is nothing to distinguish this case from others in which such entries as these have been received. Entries transferred from a card to the book on the following day, were admitted in Patton v. Ryan; and the like, in substance, was done in Ingraham v. Bockius. In Kessler v. M‘Conachy, no more was ruled than that the transfer was too late at the expiration of nearly two weeks. The objection that it was made in this instance by a third person, has no greater force. The entries might have been made originally by a clerk; and whether by the verbal instructions or written memo[191]*191randa of the principal, can surely make no difference—they would .be as much the entries of the principal in the one case as in the other.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 Whart. 189, 1841 Pa. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartley-v-brookes-pa-1841.