Case Name: Shaffer and another against Snyder
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1822-01-14
Citations: 7 Serg. & Rawle 503
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shaffer and another against Snyder.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 7
Pages: 503–505

Head Matter:
Shaffer and another against Snyder.
In Error,
Monday, January 14.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county,
In the Court below Christian Snyder, the plaintiff below brought this action on the case against Christian Shaffer and Samuel Solliday: who pleaded non assumpsit, and with leave, &c., on which issues were joined. ? °
On the trial it became a material question, whether the partnership of the defendants in a store in Hellerstown, was dissolved or not. It appeared from the testimony, that Christian Shaffer removed from Hellerstown in the spring of the year 1816. The defendants alleged that this partnership was dissolved at that time.
David Heinback was called, and examined on oath in behalf of the plaintiff. On the cross examination, the defendants asked him what his son had told him about the dissolution of the partnership of Shaffer and Solliday, when he, the son, had returned from Hellerstown. The plaintiff objected to (this interrogatory, contending that the son himself should be produced. The Court sustained the objection, and no exception was taken to the opinion of the Court as to this matter. The defendants then asked the witness, whether1 he had not notice of the dissolution of the partnership or firm of Shaffer Solliday, at the time Shaffer removed from Hellerstown. The plaintiff objected to this interrogatory, contending that the defendants wished to obtain illegal evidence by changing the question. The Court said the interrogatory might be put to the witness in this manner, to wit:—Had you notice of the dissolution of the partnership or firm of Shaffer fcf Solliday at the time Shaffer removed from Hellerstown, from the defendants or either of them, or not? The defendants refused to put the question as proposed by the Court, but insisted upon putting the question to the wit ness, whether he had not notice of the dissolution of the pavtnership or firm of Shaffer &? Solliday at the time Shaffer removed from Hellerstown ? Which question was objected t0 as aforesaid by the plaintiff, and the objection was sustained by the Court. The defendants thereupon excepted.
The testsmonyoia wit-particular ■ b1 evidence in a suit between dissolution of time becomes q^stio™1 ness that he had notice of the dissolusuit between others in which the
Binney, for the plaintiffs in error, cited, 1 PhilL Ev. 30‘6.
Scott, contra, cited, Wats, on Part. 384. Peake’s N. P. ' Cas, 53. 6 Johns. 144.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court, (Gibson J. being absent,) was delivered by
Duncan J.
This is a very narrow question; the case comes up in a nude state ; whether the plaintiff below had been a correspondent and dealer with the defendants before the dissolution of their partnership, is not stated. Nor does it appear that the defendants below, plaintiffs in error, offered any evidence of the notoriety of the dissqlution in the town and neighbourhood in which they transacted their business, or that Snyder resided near to them. The interrogatory rejected was simply this, whether the witness had not notice of the dissolution of the partnership of Shaffer & Solliday, at the time Shaffer removed from Hellerstown l
I do not know that any case has yet been decided in this Court, with respect to the notice of dissolution of partnership. In England, notice in the London Gazette, is the usual and ordinary mode, as to those who have had no previous dealings, and this has been left to the jury from whence to infer the notice. Godfrey v. Turnbull, and M'Cauley, 1 Esp. Rep. 371. In Connecticut, advertising in newspapers printed where the partners transacted the business, held evidence of notice of dissolution to every other person, not a correspondent of the company. Mowatt v. Howland and others, 3 Day. 353. So in New York, in Lansing v. Gaine & Ten Eyck, 2 John. Rep. 304. 6 Johns. 144. Ketcham & Black v. Clark, public notice must be given in a newspaper of the city and county, where the business was transacted, or public notice must be given in some other way. What notoriety of dissolution might be sufficient to go to a jury as evidence of notice to persons who had no previous dealings with the firm, (for to those who had, personal notice seems to be held necessary,) it is not made necessary to decide in this case; for ail that the interrogatory overruled could have done, if answered affirmatively, would be to prove that he the witness had notice of the dissolution when Shaffer left Hellerstown, The offer to prove by one man, that he had notice of the dissolution of partnership, could not be evidence that another had notice. It is the hearsay of one witness,- to prove a fact which must be established either by notice in the public papers, or be proved to be so notorious a fact, as that the jury might presume it had reached the parties ear, or the notice must be-personal. What evidence is proper to go to a jury to prove notice of a dissolution of partnership, the Court give no opinion; the only opinion they now give is, that this was not proper evidence, and that the Court decided properly in rejecting it.
Judgment affirmed.