Patton v. Minesinger

25 Pa. 393
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 Pa. 393 (Patton v. Minesinger) 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
Patton v. Minesinger, 25 Pa. 393 (Pa. 1855).

Opinion

Black, J.

This was an action of debt, in which the plaintiff below claimed and recovered $175. Proof was offered by the defendant, and rejected, to show that the plaintiff’s son had been employed as her agent to collect this debt; and that he had declared to a witness that it was all paid but $100.

Words spoken by an agent, when he is about the doing of some act within the scope of his delegated authority, are evidence against the principal, because the words are part of the act, and tend to explain or characterize it. But naked declarations, which are not part of any res gesta, are not admissible. They are mere hearsay, like words spoken by a stranger. In this case the declarations of the agent were not made in any sort of connexion with the performance of his duties as agent. The evidence was rightly rejected.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Goldstein
6 Pa. D. & C. 418 (Washington County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1925)
B. & O. Employees' Rel. Ass'n v. Post
15 A. 885 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Pa. 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patton-v-minesinger-pa-1855.