Case: Pleasants, Adm'tor, versus Pemberton, Adm'trix
Abbreviation: Pleasants v. Pemberton
Decision Date: 1793
Docket Number: 
Citation: 2 Dall. 196
Volume: 2
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Parties: Pleasants, Adm’tor, versus Pemberton, Adm’trix.
Judges: 
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Pleasants, Adm’tor, versus Pemberton, Adm’trix.
THIS was an action brought to recover a child’s share of the intestate’s estate. The defendant gave in evidence a receipt from the guardian of the child, for "four, thousand Continental I ollars” dated the 19th of February, 1780, while Continental money was a legal tender, but depreciated fifty for one. Upon this the guardian, (who was released so as to make him a disinterested witness) was offered to prove, that at the time of payment it had been agreed, that the value of the Continental money so paid, should be adjusted afterwards, and credit given accordingly. This testimony was opposed by Serjeant, for the defendant, upon the principle that no man shall be allowed to contradict or explain away his own instrument. The case in 1 Term. Rep. 296. speaks of deeds as well as of negociable paper. This evidence is to invalidate the force of the receipt, and to add a condition, which will take off 49-50ths. of its operation. Great inconveniences might arise, and third persons may be deceived and injured, if such explanations are admitted.
Ingersoll, for the plaintiff,
urged that the rule is confined to negociable paper. It is so settled 3 Term. Rep. 33. 36. Besides it is not proposed to contradict the receipt, which only expresses the receipt of 4000 Continental dollars; but, it would be fraudulent to prevent the plaintiff from shewing that the value was afterwards to be settled, in order to set up the implication of law against us. No inconveniences can arise; for, it is clear, a third person may be admitted to explain. Even an attesting witness was admitted in M'Minn v. Owen. 1 Dall. Rep.
Serjeant, in reply,
said, that before Shippen, President, in the Common Pleas, a captain of a vessel was not allowed to prove, that he did not receive the goods mentioned in the bill of lading.

Opinion:
M'Kean, Chief Juftice.
The general .expreflion in Walton1 &¡* Shelley muft be limited as explained in 3 Term. 33. 6. and, therefore, lince the witnefs is difinterefted, he muft be admitted. Befides, he is not to contradict the writing, or deny any thing that is in it.