Gray ex rel. Gray v. Hartman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 178, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1894, No. 51, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for breach of alleged oral contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 178, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1894, No. 51, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for breach of alleged oral contract. Before Brubaker, J. It appears from the evidence that during the progress of the trial plaintiff called as a witness one William Bachman, and against defendant’s objections was permitted to cross-examine the witness as to alleged declarations or admissions he had made previous to the trial in the office of the counsel for plaintiff, for the purpose of showing that plaintiff had been misled and deceived by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
Sixteen of the assignments of error in this case relate to exceptions taken to the examination of one Bachman, a witness called by the plaintiff, or to the testimony of witnesses called to contradict him. They raise but a single question: Can a party who has called a witness lay the ground for contradicting him by a cross-examination and subsequently contradict him by other witnesses, when he has been misled as to what the witness will testify by a preliminary examination ?
The general rule upon the subject is thus stated in Greenleaf on Evidence, vol. 1, sec. 442: “When a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McNerney v. Reading CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Stearns v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
3Cited by2 opinions
- Selden, Admr. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Commonwealth v. WickettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902