Patton v. Ryan

4 Rawle 408, 1834 Pa. LEXIS 16
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 21, 1834·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The principle of Ingraham v. Bockius is, that a minute intended, not to be itself the evidence of the sale, but to be used in the preparation of such evidence, is not an original entry within the meaning of the term as it is used in the books. If such be its effect, the material on which it is written, or the size and shape of it, must be indifferent. Here it was made on a card which was superseded by a hook into which it was transcribed, and which was destined to be the final means of perpetuating it; for the destruction of the card when the transcript was made, shows that its office was but a temporary one. It would be most unreasonable to preclude a shop-keeper from making the regular, permanent entry in his day-book, because he had taken the precaution to put down the transaction on a fugitive scrap of paper, in order to insure a greater degree of accuracy when the regular entry of it should come to [411] be made. Such a rule would be subversive of every thing like fair dealing; and under the circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the book was properly received.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Patton v. Ryan, 4 Rawle 408, 1834 Pa. LEXIS 16 (Pa. 1834).

4 Rawle 408 (Patton v. Ryan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seixas v. Citizens' Bank
38 La. Ann. 424 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1886)
Cahn v. Salinas
2 Wilson 537 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1885)
Conté v. Cain
33 La. Ann. 965 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1881)
Abat v. Penny
70 La. Ann. 289 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1867)
Smith v. Sanford
29 Mass. 139 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1832)