Case Name: BOYER, for the use of his Assignees, against POTTS
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1826-05-24
Citations: 14 Serg. & Rawle 157
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOYER, for the use of his Assignees, against POTTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 14
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
[Lancaster,
May 24, 1826.]
BOYER, for the use of his Assignees, against POTTS.
IN ERROR.
A justice of the peace is not presumed to be the agent of the plaintiff in a suit brought before him. Therefore a copy of the plaintiff’s account, furnished by the justice to the defendant, accompanied by a note demanding payment, is not evidence against the plaintiff; on the trial of another action.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks county, in an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff in error, Jacob K, Boyer, for the use of his assignees, against David Potts, jr., the defendant in error.
Upon the trial in the court below, after the plaintiff had given in evidence his book of original entries, the defendant proved that the plaintiff had brought a suit before William Mendenhall, Esq., a justice of the peace, since deceased, against David Potts, sen., the father of the defendant; and, to prove that the suit before the justice was for the same 'cause of action as that under trial, he offered in evidence a copy of Boyer’s account, furnished by the justice to David Potts the elder before suit was brought, accompanied by the following note:—
“ Sir, — The above is a copy of Mr. Boyer’s account. Would thank you to let me hear from you respecting it soon.
Yours, respectfully,
(Signed) William Mendenhall.”
The counsel for the plaintiff objected to the evidence, but the court admitted it, and an exception was taken to their .opinion.,
The errors assigned on the argument in this court, were in the admission of the evidence above stated; and in the charge of the court, in withdrawing, as was alleged, the facts from the jury.
Darling and Buchanan, for the plaintiff in error.
Baird and Biddle, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, J.
There is no colour to say, that the court withdrew the determination of the facts from the jury; and the inquiry is narrowed to the bill of exceptions to evidence. It was alleged, that Boyer had sued David Potts, the father, before Justice Men-denhall, for the same cause of action that is laid in this suit against his son; and, to prove this, the defendant offered an account furnished to his father, in the handwriting.of Justice Mendenhall,-who is dead, accompanying a note from the justice, which contains a demand of payment. This was furnished before suit was brought; and it is contended to be competent evidence, because, as it is said, the justice was the agent of Boyer, and, consequently, that his acts are to be treated as the-acts of his principal. There was no evidence of any delegation of authority, except what was thought to result from the relation in which the parties stood of magistrate and suitor; and the.law, certainly, will not from this presume the existence of an agency so fraudulent and base. Justices of the peace, no doubt, frequently act as agents for those who employ them; but they ought to know that they do so at the peril of being convicted of a highly aggravated misdemeanor, which is indictable at the common law. Ignorance cannot palliate a crime of this sort;for the turpitude of acting both as a judge and party in the same cause, cannot but be obvious to the dullest comprehension. In the case before us, it is impossible to connect Boyer with the act with which it is attempted to fix him; and, as the act of the justice, it was entirely extrajudicial. We are therefore of opinion that the paper was incompetent, and ought not to have been admitted.
Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.