Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Whart. 566

Arrott v. Pratt

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 29, 1837

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1837-04-29

Aw action on the case was brought in this court to July term, •1836, by James Arrott against Henry Pratt; and at this term a rule was obtained on the part of the defendant, to show cause why an order should not be made on the plaintiff to produce certain papers for the inspection of the defendant.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1869

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1837-04-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1It is not intended to' define the cases in which a party may be entitled by the statute to call for the inspection of a document; but it may be asserted that he will be entitled, without regard to the right of custody, whenever he has a common interest in it. The document required, is the account of sales by the common agent of the shippers, who sold the cargo of the Superior for the benefit of the concerned; and it is equally the property of all of them. It is therefore unnecessary to inquire how it came to the plaintiffs’ hands: he has it, and that is enough for the purposes of the decision. In Rose v. King, the time of inspection was not fixed; but justice and the purposes of preparation require it to be at a convenient period before the trial. It is ordered therefore that the plaintiff, on reasonable notice had, .permit the defendant to inspect the paper in his presence; or, if required, to have a copy of it made, at his own charge, by a person designated by the plaintiff; and that the paper be received in evidence at the trial, without further authentication.

¶2Order accordingly.

/2/whart/566 · .json · Public domain