Case Name: BURK against HOOVER
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1831-11
Citations: 3 Pen. & W. 292
Docket Number: 
Parties: BURK against HOOVER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Penrose & Watts)
Volume: 3
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
BURK against HOOVER.
in error.
in an action for work done in finishing a house, it is competent to prove, to show that the house belonged to the plaintiff, and not the defendant, that the defendant bought the property, paid a part < f the purchase money, and declared at the^ time that the purchase was for the plaintiff, if it be also proved that the plaintiff paid up the residue of the purchase money: this was evidence of confirmation of everything thathkd been said or done at the time of thfe purchase as partofthem gesta.
Error to the District Court for the city and county of Lancaster.
It was an action of debt brought by Marlin Hoover, the defendant in error, against Peter Burk, plaintiff in error, for carpenter’s work done “in building and finishing a house in MillerstownP— The defendant below in order to show that the house, in the finishing of which the work charged, was done, was the plaintiff’s own property and not his, offered to prove, that - the witness sold two lots of ground in Millerslown, Lancaster county, for twelve hundred' . pounds to Peter Burk, who paid him sixty pounds on account, and at the time, he Burk, “said he had bought them for theplainti S,Martin Hoover f that the seid Martin Hoover paid the witness the balance of the consideration, as agreed upon by Burk, the defendant, on behalf of Martin Hoover,end the witness.- The courtreceived all the evidence so offered except that Burk “said he had bought them for the plaintiff, Martin Hoover,’ this part of the offer the court rejected and upon exception by the defendant sealed a bill. The jury gave a verdict for the. plaintiff.
Error was assigned’in the rejection of the evidence mentioned in the bill of exceptions.
Frazer for the plaintiff in error, was stopped by the court.
Champneys for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The bare declaration offthe defendant that the house in the finishing of which the work charged"was done, was the plaintiff's own property, and not that, of the defendant, would not have been competent to discharge him; but ir. was otherwise when' taken in connexion with the acts of confirmation of the plaintiff.— The offer was to prove that at the time of the sale to the defendant and payment of part of the purchase money, not only that he declared, the purchase was for the plaintiff, but that the -plaintiff paid up the residue of the purchase money; and surely that was evidence of confirmation of every thing that had been said or done at the time of the purchase, as part of the res gesta. It ought therefore to have gone to the jury.
Judgment reversed and venire de novo awarded.