Hamilton v. Hastings
Citations
- 172 Pa. 308
- 34 A. 43
- 1896 Pa. LEXIS 777
Syllabus
<p>Contract — Evidence—Relevancy of evidence.</p> <p>In an action by a partnership to recover the price of lumber, where defendant alleges that he did not buy the lumber from the plaintiff, but from another firm, and that the person who made the sale to him was a member of both firms, but had made the sale for the second firm in consideration of defendant’s releasing it from another contract, evidence relating to that contract, how far the same had been executed, and the state of accounts between defendant and the second firm are admissible for the purpose of showing circumstances tending to make the proposition advanced by the defendant more or less probable.</p> <p>In such cases much latitude must necessarily be allowed in the admission of corroborating testimony.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[I]n order to consider what are usually distinct jobs as a single period of employment, there must be evidence of an ongoing employment relationship.”
- where referee found that claimant last worked for employer under a contract made in Pennsylvania for work to be performed in Lexington, Kentucky, jurisdiction did not lie in Pennsylvania
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Pell, Sterrett, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.