Pannill v. Eliason & Brown

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Pannill v. Eliason & Brown

18 F. Cas. 1084, 3 D.C. 358, 3 Cranch 358

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 15, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 18 F. Cas. 1084 (Pannill v. Eliason & Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pannill v. Eliason & Brown, 18 F. Cas. 1084, 3 D.C. 358, 3 Cranch 358 (circtddc 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

But the Court (ThRüston, J., absent,) overruled the objection, and suffered the deposition to be read.

The defendants’ counsel then contended that'the witness was not competent to prove his own authority to sign receipts for wheat delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. 1 Phil, on Ev. 95; 4 Starkie on Ev. 55, 1730.

But the Court, (nem. con.) upon the authority cited in Paley on Agency, 245, said he was competent.

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

But the Court (ThRüston, J., absent,) overruled the objection, and suffered the deposition to be read.

The defendants’ counsel then contended that'the witness was not competent to prove his own authority to sign receipts for wheat delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. 1 Phil, on Ev. 95; 4 Starkie on Ev. 55, 1730.

But the Court, (nem. con.) upon the authority cited in Paley on Agency, 245, said he was competent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F. Cas. 1084, 3 D.C. 358, 3 Cranch 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pannill-v-eliason-brown-circtddc-1828.