Hoskinson v. Miller

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Hoskinson v. Miller

104 Pa. 175, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 249

DecidedOctober 3, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 104 Pa. 175 (Hoskinson v. Miller) 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

Hoskinson v. Miller, 104 Pa. 175, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 249 (Pa. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was filed October 15th 1883.

Per Curiam.

— Clark was not a party in the issue being tried. He was not interested in the result. As to him the judgment had become final mine months before he was offered as a witness. His liability was fixed absolutely. The defence set up by the plaintiffs in error was personal as to the sureties. It did not, raise the question of consideration, or original liability on the note. The makers of the note were jointly and severally bound. The witness testified voluntarily to rebut a presumption which the sureties sought to raise from the payment of interest by the witness. The defence of the sureties being purely personal the witness was competent for the plaintiff below: Talmage v. Burlingame, 9 Barr 21; Simpson’s Executor v. Bovard, 24 P. F. Smith 351; Good v. Calvert, 1 Pennypacker 140. It is very doubtful whether the receipt unexplained could have operated to the injury of the sureties.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was filed October 15th 1883.

Per Curiam.

— Clark was not a party in the issue being tried. He was not interested in the result. As to him the judgment had become final mine months before he was offered as a witness. His liability was fixed absolutely. The defence set up by the plaintiffs in error was personal as to the sureties. It did not, raise the question of consideration, or original liability on the note. The makers of the note were jointly and severally bound. The witness testified voluntarily to rebut a presumption which the sureties sought to raise from the payment of interest by the witness. The defence of the sureties being purely personal the witness was competent for the plaintiff below: Talmage v. Burlingame, 9 Barr 21; Simpson’s Executor v. Bovard, 24 P. F. Smith 351; Good v. Calvert, 1 Pennypacker 140. It is very doubtful whether the receipt unexplained could have operated to the injury of the sureties.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 Pa. 175, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoskinson-v-miller-pa-1883.