Linderman v. Pomeroy

Citations

• 142 Pa. 168
• 21 A. 820
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 722

Syllabus

<p>(а) The plaintiff, claiming over-payment on a debt, — the recovery of the over-payment being barred by the statute, — testified that, within six years of suit brought, he told the defendant he proposed to have an account stated by one Hoffman, when the defendant replied he would as lief Hoffman would do it as any one.</p> <p>(б) He testified that he said to defendant also : “If Hoffman does this, if I owe you anything I will pay you; and if you owe me anything you will pay me; ” to which the defendant replied: “Yes, sir; if you owe me anything you must pay me, and if I owe you I will pay you : ”</p> <p>1. The plaintiff’s testimony was insufficient to be considered as evidence of a submission to arbitration, or of a compromise of disputed rights. Moreover, the promise of the defendant, being conditional and indefinite, was unavailing as an acknowledgment of indebtedness sufficient to toll the bar of the statute.</p> <p>2. The practice, on the argument of a rule for a new trial, of entering judgment against the judge’s own view of the law, and putting additional labor upon the Supreme Court, for the mere purpose of saving expense to a litigant, disapproved: Per Mr. Justice Mitchell.</p>