Case Name: John Miller, esq., late sheriff, against John Hayman
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1791-05
Citations: 1 Yeates 23
Docket Number: 
Parties: *John Miller, esq., late sheriff, against John Hayman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 1
Pages: 22–23

Head Matter:
*John Miller, esq., late sheriff, against John Hayman.
A party interested will be admitted as a witness for tbe sake of trade and the common usage of business. So an agent, factor or attorney, bidding for another, may prove his own power.
Assumpsit. The plaintiff, as late sheriff of Lancaster county, declared on two counts against the defendant for 436I. on a sale of a house and four lots of ground in the borough of Lancaster, late the property of Jacob Reigart. The first was a special assumpsit, stating the plaintiff’s being sheriff, the different executions issued, the property levied on, advertised and sold to defendant, the same being struck off to Joseph Hubley, esq., his attorney, specially authorised for that purpose. The second was a count on mutual promises, that upon a communication had between them, the defendant had agreed to purchase for 436I., that the plaintiff had tendered him a deed, but that the defendant did not comply with his promise, &c.
Joseph Hubley, esq., was offered as a witness on the part of the plaintiff, and was excepted to on the score of interest. It was said he might lose by the event of the suit, because, if the plaintiff did not recover in the present action, he might recur to the witness on his bid. It was also said that his authority to purchase as an agent must be proved by other testimony, and that this point had been determined at Nisi Prius at Lancaster, May assizes, 1788, in the case of Samuel Cunningham v. William Galt, et al., where it was held that John Whitehill should not be received to testify that he was appointed the agent of the plaintiff, to receive certain moneys due to him from the Presbyterian congregation of Pequea: that the cases of factors put in the books were chiefly sales by factors, which are readily distinguished from the present suit; and that no man could be safe if this practice was gone into. A servant of the most prudent master may at any time charge his master to any amount by his own oath. He may take up goods to any value, swear that his master gave him the orders to purchase, and if other proof was not necessary to prove his authority, no precautions whatever could guard against the mischiefs which must necessarily be hereby introduced.
Cited in 3 Wh., 40, and 8 Watts, 526.
On the other hand, it was contended that Mr. Hubley was a competent witness.
The plaintiff’s counsel cited 1 Atk. 248. “If a factor sells ‘ ‘ goods for a principal, he may bring an action in his own “name; or, an action maybe brought in the name of the “principal against vendee, and the factor may make himself ‘ ‘ a witness. So a vendor of goods to a factor for the use of ‘ ‘ his principal, may maintain an action against the principal “for * goods sold, and the factor may be made a witness v-ma 1 ‘ for the vendor. It has been often so settled at Guild- *- “ hall.”
3 Wils. 40. A factor who sells for plaintiff, and is to have is. in the pound, is a good witness to prove the contract and sale. ‘ ‘ He is a mere go-between as to the vendor and ven-1 ‘ dee, and may be a good witness for either of them. ’ ’
As to the case of Cunningham v. Galt et al. it was answered, that the exceptions against Mr. Whitehill were, that he was a member of the congregation, and bound to contribute his proportion under the general engagement of the society, and cases to this purpose, viz: 2 Blacks. Rep. 695, 949, and 5 Burr. 2611, were cited upon that argument. And also it appeared by the deposition of the Rev. Robert Smith, read by the plaintiff on that trial, (which was now produced in court) that Mr. Whitehill was more immediately interested, the money for the work done by Cunningham having been collected from the members of the church, and paid to him in January 1778, and that the same lay in his hands until the year 1780.
Messrs. Hartley, Bowie and C. Smith, pro quer.
Messrs. Bradford, Kittera and Barton, pro def.
The point reserved was not afterwards moved in bank.

Opinion:
Per Cur.
A party interested will, in some instances, be admitted a witness for the sake of trade and the common usage of business; or, where no other witness is reasonably to be expected. Bull. 284. Nothing is more frequent in the city of Philadelphia, than persons buying lands, ships, and other property to a great value, through the medium of their friends. They, in many instances, do not wish to appear openly as bidders, at public out-cry. It would materially affect all such transactions, if the power or authority to purchase could not be proved by the agent or factor bidding. But the rule now laid down is not intended as a general one.
Mr. Hubley was sworn: But the court reserved che point, in case the defendant's counsel should wish to have the matter considered in bank.
Verdict for the plaintiff for 505I. 6s. 7d. including interest from the day of execution of the sheriff's deed.