Lodge v. Phipher
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county, it appeared that both parties to this ejectment claimed the land in dispute, under Reuben Haines, deceased.' The plaintiffs below, who were also plaintiffs in error, set up a parol contract between the said Reuben Haines and Jonathan Lodge, deceased, in proof of which they gave in evidence, a receipt from the said Reuben to the said Jonathan, in part payment for the land in dispute.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county, it appeared that both parties to this ejectment claimed the land in dispute, under Reuben Haines, deceased.' The plaintiffs below, who were also plaintiffs in error, set up a parol contract between the said Reuben Haines and Jonathan Lodge, deceased, in proof of which they gave in evidence, a receipt from the said Reuben to the said Jonathan, in part payment for the land in dispute. The defendants asserted that this receipt was a forgery, and gave evidence of the declarations of Jonathan Lodge, one of the plaintiffs,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the-court was delivered by
Tilghman, C. J.
The plaintiff is sometimes permitted to prove collateral matters, such as the loss of a paper, and the search that has been made for it. Evidence of this kind is generally given to the court, as a foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence. But here, the receipt had been read to the jury, and Lodge’s testimony was offered in chief, in contradiction to what had been sworn by one of the defendants’ witnesses. This is against all principle. There was none of that necessity, which in most cases, is the reason for admitting the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hanley v. GandyTexas Supreme Court · 1866
- Baker v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841