Boyd v. Conshohocken Worsted Mills
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 175, Jan T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1891, No. 138, on verdict for plaintiff, Augustus Boyd. Assumpsit to recover dividends on stock.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 175, Jan T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1891, No. 138, on verdict for plaintiff, Augustus Boyd. Assumpsit to recover dividends on stock. On the trial, before Swartz, P. J., the plaintiff proved his ownership of 300 shares of the stock of the defendant company and the declaration of the dividends in November of 1884,1885 and 1886; and then testified that he had never received the dividends but had demanded them May 31,1890, before which time he did not know they had been declared, and payment had been refused by defendant’s treasurer, Mr.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
It is not necessary to consider now whether Augustus Boyd was incompetent under clause (e) of § 5 of the act of May 23, 1887, to testify to matters occurring in the lifetime of George *372Bullock, for if he was, his incompetency was removed by the action of the appellant company in calling him, under § 7 of that act, to testify to such matters. When he was first called 'as a witness in his own behalf, his examination was confined to his demand on May 31, 1890, for the dividends, and this was more than a year after the death of Bullock. He was then called by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Estate of CorsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by13 opinions
- Greenfield v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. SauppSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Watkins v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- In Re Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Gallagher v. RoganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.