Hoofnagle v. Dering

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Hoofnagle v. Dering

1 Yeates 302

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 15, 1793

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Yeates 302 (Hoofnagle v. Dering) 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

Hoofnagle v. Dering, 1 Yeates 302 (Pa. 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cur.

The authority to the two commissioners is joint; and it certainly could not be executed by the commissioner on the part of the defendant, without notice to the plaintiff’s commissioner. In this instance too, the defendant has taken out a new commission for the re-examination of the same witness, which strongly implies that the former execution of [302]*302it was irregular; and therefore the reading of it in evidence must be overruled.

Messrs. Ingersoll and C. Smith, pro quer. Messrs. Kittera and M. Barton, pro def.

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

Per Cur.

The authority to the two commissioners is joint; and it certainly could not be executed by the commissioner on the part of the defendant, without notice to the plaintiff’s commissioner. In this instance too, the defendant has taken out a new commission for the re-examination of the same witness, which strongly implies that the former execution of [302]*302it was irregular; and therefore the reading of it in evidence must be overruled.

Messrs. Ingersoll and C. Smith, pro quer. Messrs. Kittera and M. Barton, pro def.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Yeates 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoofnagle-v-dering-pa-1793.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack