Powell v. Derickson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 341, Jan. T., 1896,’ by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Feb. T., 1894, No. 175, on verdict for defendants. Assumpsit on certificate of deposit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 341, Jan. T., 1896,’ by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Feb. T., 1894, No. 175, on verdict for defendants. Assumpsit on certificate of deposit. Before Cels well, P. J. At the trial it appeared that in 1867 Cyrus Kitchen and others organized a general copartnership under the name and style of the M'eadville Savings Bank for the purpose of carrying on a general banldng business in the city of Meadville, Pa., and entered into and signed articles of association therefor, the interests of the members being represented by shares of stock. On January 20, 1877, A. P.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
It is not necessary to determine now whether Cyrus Kitchen was a competent witness to matters occurring in the lifetime of D. Y. Derickson, deceased. The court below held that he was not. The plaintiffs were not injured by this ruling because the specific matters proposed to be shown by him were established by admittedly competent testimony and were not disputed. That the certificate of October 10,1893, represented the balance of a deposit made prior to the death of Derickson and while he was a member of the firm, was conceded. For a similar reason it is not…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bruggeman v. City of YorkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Plotts' EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1938