Bixler v. Heilman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 171, Oct. T., 1910, by defendants, from decree of C. P. Franklin Co., Equity Docket, vol. 3, p. 99, on bill in equity in case of Annie E. Bentz Bixler and S. H. C. Bixler, her husband, v. George M. Heilman. Bill in equity for cancellation of a deed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 171, Oct. T., 1910, by defendants, from decree of C. P. Franklin Co., Equity Docket, vol. 3, p. 99, on bill in equity in case of Annie E. Bentz Bixler and S. H. C. Bixler, her husband, v. George M. Heilman. Bill in equity for cancellation of a deed. Gillan, P. J., filed the following adjudication and opinion: FINDINGS OF FACTS. 1. On March 26, 1907, the plaintiff, Annie E. Bentz Bixler, became the owner of a lot of ground on east Baltimore street in the borough of Greencastle, about eighty-three and one-half feet and running back to a public alley 240 feet, and was still the owner…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
What quantity of evidence is required, to overcome a responsive answer has been variously stated. In Eaton’s App., 66 Pa. 483, a leading case, it is said to be “the tes*616timony of two witnesses or of one witness corroborated by circumstances elsewhere in evidence.” Other cases, in which the rule is stated in substantially the same way, are Cresson’s App., 91 Pa. 168; Gleghorne v. Gleghorne, 118 Pa. 383; McGary v. McDermott, 207 Pa. 620. In other cases the requirement is said to be “the evidence of two witnesses or of one witness and strong corroborating circumstances”:…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Greenfield' EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Eaton's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Bussier v. WeekeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Galbraith v. GalbraithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Burke's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Robinson v. HarshawSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916