De Benneville v. De Benneville
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This was an action of trespass for mesne profits, wherein the plaintiff recovered $200 damages. An appeal was made from the prothonotary’s taxation of costs, on the ground that a number of unnecessary witnesses had been -subpoenaed by the plaintiff, .some of whom were material for the defendant, and had been called by him, while others had not been examined in the cause ; and that in the case of one witness in particular, an attachment had been taken out for him, though the…
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass for mesne profits, wherein the plaintiff recovered $200 damages. An appeal was made from the prothonotary’s taxation of costs, on the ground that a number of unnecessary witnesses had been -subpoenaed by the plaintiff, .some of whom were material for the defendant, and had been called by him, while others had not been examined in the cause ; and that in the case of one witness in particular, an attachment had been taken out for him, though the plaintiff had been informed he was .infirm and unable to attend, and being brought a certain distance on the road, the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
No general rule can be laid down on the subject with safety to the suitors and the general practice. A party must come armed at all points. He cannot know what matters will be conceded by his adversary, nor what all his witnesses will testify. The necessity of calling a witness is often super-ceded by what passes in court, of which it is impossible to form any judgment before hand. One thing is certain, that the ex-pences of witnesses always exceed their legal allowance, which the party summoning them is generally obliged to pay. In the case of the witness, whose appearance was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Willink v. ReceleNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Johnson v. Lake City BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Richland Township School District Appeal, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cambria County1957