McKinney v. Snyder

• Citation: 78 Pa. 497
• Parties: McKinney <I>versus</I> Snyder.
• Decision Date: 24 May 1875
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 497

78 Pa. 497

McKinney versus Snyder.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 12, 1875.

May 24, 1875.

May 12th 1875.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county: Of May Term 1875, No. 95.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

W. F. Sadler (with whom was J. M. Weakley), for plaintiff in error.—Admissions to Jacoby were of no avail to take the case out of the statute, unless defendant knew that he was the agent of the plaintiff: Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank v. Wilson, 10 Watts 262; Morgan v. Walton, 4 Barr 321; Kyle v. Wells, 5 Harris 290. The admission must be positive, distinct, unqualified, such as would maintain the promise in a declaration: Tanner v. Smart, 6 B. & C. 602; Hart v. Prendergast, 14 M. & W. 741; Laforge v. Jayne, 9 Barr 410.

A. M. Rhoads, for defendant in error.—Jacoby's statement was corroborative of the plaintiff's testimony: Davis v. Steiner, 2 Harris 279. An unequivocal admission of indebtedness is sufficient to take a case out of the statute: McClelland v. West, 9 P. F. Smith 487. The admission and evidence was for the jury: Barwell v. Wirth, 11 P. F. Smith 133. The promise was certain and within full reach of the statute: Yaw v. Kerr, 11 Wright 333; Wolfensberger v. Young, Id. 516; Hazlebaker v. Reeves, 2 Jones 264; Fries v. Boisselet, 9 S. & R. 128; Eckert v. Wilson, 12 Id. 393; Bailey v. Bailey, 14 Id. 195.

Mr. Justice PAXSON delivered the opinion of the court, May 24th 1875.

The plaintiff's third point as submitted was insensible, and ought not to have been affirmed. It is impossible for us to form even a rational guess at the effect, if any, of such a point upon the minds of the jury. It may have misled them; by no possibility could it have thrown any light upon the questions of fact which they were called upon to determine. The true object of submitting a point to the court is to obtain a clear and reliable instruction to aid the jury in the formation of an intelligent verdict. The court should decline to receive a point, when it is so obscurely worded as to confuse rather than enlighten the jury.

There was error in the answer of the learned judge of the court below to the defendant's third point. It should have been affirmed. There was not a scintilla of proof to show that the defendant knew that Jacoby was acting as Snyder's agent. In the absence of such knowledge, the admission has no more force than if made to a stranger.

We are aware that the unbroken current of English authority, with perhaps the exception of a dictum of Baron Parke's in Rodgers v. Arch, 10 Exchequer 333, in which he dissents from the rest of the court, is full to the point that a promise made to a stranger is sufficient to take the case out of the statute. So too are the decisions of many of our sister states: Minkler v. Minkler, 16 Verm. 194; Bird v. Adams, 7 Geo. 55; Bloodgood v. Bruer, 4 Sand. 427; Watkins v. Stevens, 4 Barb. 168; Carshore v. Hwyck, 6 Id. 583; Titus v. Ash, 4 Foster 319. But the rule is different in this state. It was distinctly and definitely decided in Kyle v. Wells, 5 Harris 286, that a promise, to take the case out of the statute, must be made to the plaintiff or his agent. Kyle v. Wells was followed by Gillingham v. Gillingham, decided at the same term, and reported in the same volume, at page 302, in which the same principle is reasserted. While our own cases are clearly at variance, upon this point, with the current of authority elsewhere, we prefer to adhere to them, not only because the maxim stare decisis ought not to be departed from unless for weighty reasons, but also because we believe our own rule a sound one. To attempt to reconcile the conflicting decisions upon the Statute of Limitations would be a hopeless task. There is no branch of the law upon which the courts of the different states have differed more widely, particularly...