Lightner v. Wike
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. THIS case came before the Court on three bills of exceptions, which were returned with the record, on a writ r - A error to Lancaster county. In the Court below, it was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiffs in error against the defendant, in which the title of both parties depended on the validity of a writing, purporting to be the testament and last will of George Wike, deceased, the father of the defendant.
Read the full summary
In Error. THIS case came before the Court on three bills of exceptions, which were returned with the record, on a writ r - A error to Lancaster county. In the Court below, it was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiffs in error against the defendant, in which the title of both parties depended on the validity of a writing, purporting to be the testament and last will of George Wike, deceased, the father of the defendant. The plaintiffs claimed in opposition to the will; the defendant under it. There had been a former trial on an issue of devisavit vel non, directed by the Register’s…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J.
It is a rule of law, that what a deceased witness swore at a former trial, may be given in evidence at a subsequent trial of a cause depending between the same parties. This is from necessity. It is an exception from the general rule, which demands the examination of a witness viva voce, and must be extended no further than necessity requires. The deceased witness cannot be examined; therefore a living witness is permitted to prove what the deceased had said. But this proof must be on oath, because there is no necessity that it should be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Clark v. VorceNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Hauberger v. RootSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Young v. DearbornSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851