McGill v. Rowand
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. Sept. 11. This was an action on the case brought by John Rowand, plaintiff below, and defendant in error, against Arthur McGill, Edward W. Hays, James Stewart, Griffith Bennett, and Prescot Metcalf, defendants below, and plaintiffs in error, to recover the value of two trunks and their contents.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. Sept. 11. This was an action on the case brought by John Rowand, plaintiff below, and defendant in error, against Arthur McGill, Edward W. Hays, James Stewart, Griffith Bennett, and Prescot Metcalf, defendants below, and plaintiffs in error, to recover the value of two trunks and their contents. It was testified on the trial, in substance, that the defendants were owners of the line of stages from Pittsburgh to Meadville ; that the plaintiff and wife were passengers in the stage from Pittsburgh to Meadville, in July, 1843; that two large trunks…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
The principle- of necessity which alone enables a party, under certain circumstances, to prove the contents *453of a box, or trunk, applies, with as much, if not greater force, to the wife as to the husband. The wife usually packs her husband’s trunk, and always her' own, and therefore to say that she cannot in a proper case be a witness, will amount almost to a repeal of the rule, and in most cases to a denial of justice. We therefore see no reasonable objection to the admission of the husband or wife, or both, to testify, to the amount of their wearing apparel, and to its value, belonging to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Courtney v. CourtneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
- Berkebile v. Johnstown Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Patterson v. Union Transfer Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Kast v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Mayer v. Yellow Cab Co.Pennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1931