Case Name: Longenecker and another against Hyde
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1813-05-22
Citations: 6 Binn. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: Longenecker and another against Hyde.
Judges: Ye ates J. was prevented by sickness from sitting during this term.
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Binney)
Volume: 6
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
Longenecker and another against Hyde.
Lancaster, Saturday, 22.
The letter of a that°he liad re"S from the plaintiff to sell upon commission, is not evlforhav- ™ of the letter to be mau of proper-&c. mte°l
IN ERROR.
THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county, in which Court the plaintiffs brought an action upon the case against the defendant, for having fraudulently and falsely represented a certain F. Eckstein r ; . „ ,j7 . , . , as a man or property, integrity, See. with a view to induce the plaintiffs to trade with him. The declaration averred that the plaintiffs, who were distillers, did in or such raise representation send three hogsheads or to Eckstein to be sold on commission, and that in consequence of his insolvency, they suffered loss, See. '
Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiffs, having proved that the .defendant recommended Eckstein as a man of property, &c. offered in evidence, to prove the delivery of the gin to Eckstein, a letter from him to them, acknowledging tl?e receipt of three hogsheads, the day before, which he promised to account for; but upon the defendant’s objection the court overruled the evidence, and whether the Common Pleas were right was the question.
Hopkins for the plaintiffs in error. Montgomery contra.

Opinion:
Tilghman C. J.
The rule of. law is, that no witness is to be heard but upon oath. The confession of a party is in deed evidence without oath, because in its nature nothing can be more satisfactory. But Eckstein was no party to the suit, nor was he the agent of the defendant, or in any manner connected with him. To admit his assertions then without oath, would lead to dangerous consequences. Collusions might easily be formed between plaintiffs and their witnesses, who might easily be induced to make declarations in letters, which they would be afraid to verify, on oath hi open court. The defendant had a right to the oath of Eckstein, and the,opportunity of cross-examining him in public. There is nothing in the case to take it out of the general rule. I am therefore of opinion that the Court of Common Pleas was right in rejecting the evidence, and that' judgment should be affirmed.
Ye ates J. was prevented by sickness from sitting during this term.
Brackenridge J. was of the same opinion.
Judgment affirmed.