Grogan v. Leike
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 143, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Chester Co., April T., 1901, No. 69, on verdict for defendant in case of James Grogan v. William Leike. Trespass quare clasum fregit. Before Hemphill, P. J. At the trial the plaintiff testified that the defendant had, in constructing a new fence, moved back a boundary stone onto the plaintiff’s land.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 143, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Chester Co., April T., 1901, No. 69, on verdict for defendant in case of James Grogan v. William Leike. Trespass quare clasum fregit. Before Hemphill, P. J. At the trial the plaintiff testified that the defendant had, in constructing a new fence, moved back a boundary stone onto the plaintiff’s land. On cross-examination he was asked this question: Mr. Pierce: “ Q. I want you to recollect whether or not you were not out there, you and your son, in 1894, giving the line and agreeing where the line should be. A. No, sir; I did…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
The appellant’s specifications of error both relate to the admission of the same testimony. In the first it is claimed that the testimony admitted was not cross-examination. This, however, does not seem to us to be well founded. It was in re*62gard to a subject which legitimately grew out of the examination in chief and was calculated to negative the allegation of the plaintiff that the stone which was the center of the line which separated the farms of the plaintiff and defendant had been removed by the defendant and was, therefore, legitimate cross-examination.
It was also a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Newton v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Beals Et Ux. v. Allison Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Ross v. Golden Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Dresser & Pringle v. Williams, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, McKean County1922