Crawford v. Forest Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 3, 1899

Crawford v. Forest Oil Co., 189 Pa. 415 (Pa. 1899)

42 A. 39; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 659

Collum, Dean, Fell, Green, Mitchell, Pee

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam,

The plaintiff’s receipt was in full for the professional services for which he now claims additional compensation. The oral testimony of the plaintiff being absolutely opposed by the testimony of Mr. Cummins is insufficient to warrant the jury in disregarding the receipt. There was no evidence of services rendered after the receipt was given, and hence the plaintiff’s claim was limited to those which were rendered before the receipt. The learned court below was entirely right in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: W. G. Crawford v. the Forest Oil Company
Cited By: 11 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Evidence—Receipts—Written instrument. Where a receipt in full is set up as a defense in an action for professional services, and it appears that no services were rendered after the date of the receipt, and the plaintiff’s testimony that when the receipt was given it was agreed that it should not have the effect of a x’eeeipt in full, but that he should receive additional compensation, is directly contradicted by the testimony of defendant’s agent, the receipt is conclusive against the plaintiff’s right to recover.