Brientnall v. Peters

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew,

The facts of this case are almost exactly like those in Judith v. Dicola, No. 74, January Term, 1935, opinion this day filed. The only point of difference worthy of note is that the plaintiff here testified on cross-examination that “in some cases” Hetrick had collected, and she had accepted, payments of principal on mortgage loans which he had made to other mortgagors on her behalf. It is argued that this testimony brings the case within the doctrine of Patterson v. VanLoon, 186 Pa. 367, Colonial Trust Co. v. Davis, 274 Pa. 363, Williams v. Cook, 289 Pa. 207, and…