Krumrine v. Grenoble
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 185, July T., 1893, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Centre Co., Jan. T., 1891, No.17, on verdict for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 185, July T., 1893, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Centre Co., Jan. T., 1891, No.17, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on agreement in writing. [See collateral issue’ in Mingle v. Rossmann, 161 Pa. 366.] Before Furst, P. J. Plaintiff’s statement 'was as follows: “ The demand of the plaintiff in the. above stated action is founded upon a certain article of agreement between Henry Krumrine, late of Gregg township, deceased, and thfe defendants, dated March 20, 1888, under and by virtue of which, the said plaintiff agreed to sell to the said defendants a certain stock of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bt
Me. Justice McCollum,
The ruling complained of in the first specification of error was not excepted to on the trial, and the directions in the opinion and order allowing an exception nunc pro tune were not complied with. The rejected offer was incomplete because it failed to show what was proposed to be proven by the witness whose competency to testify to matters occurring in the lifetime of Henry Krumrine was dependent upon and qualified by the act of June 11, 1891. That act created an exception to the general rule under which the witness was incompetent to testify to such matters,…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Commonwealth Trust Co. v. SzaboSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Estate of GavulaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Roberts EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Bowman's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Wright v. HannaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.