Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Shay

• Decision Date: 02 June 1876
• Citation: 82 Pa. 198
• Parties: Pennsylvania Railroad Co. <I>versus</I> Shay.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 198

82 Pa. 198

Pennsylvania Railroad Co. versus Shay.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 26, 1876.

June 2, 1876.

May 26th 1876.

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

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin county: Of May Term 1876, No. 98.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Hall & Jordan, for plaintiff in error.—The rule of law is that extrinsic evidence cannot be admitted to contradict or vary a written instrument, especially one under seal: Lighty v. Shorb, 3 Penna. 450; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Fenlon, 4 W. & S. 205; Rearick's Ex'rs v. Rearick, 3 Harris 66. This rule is particularly important since the Evidence Act of 1869. In equity, fraud or mistake, plainly made to appear by clear, satisfactory and convincing proof, may be shown. The only evidence of fraud was the plaintiff's, and the rule of evidence in equity is that where there is oath against oath the denial must prevail: Brawdy v. Brawdy, 7 Barr 157; Ballentine v. White, 27 P. F. Smith 20; Rogers v. Insurance Co., 6 Paige 583; Commercial Bank v. State Bank, 4 Ed. Ch. 32.

The fact that the plaintiff below could not read, does not entitle him to relief: Seeright v. Fletcher, 6 Black 380; May v. Johnson, 3 Indiana 449; 2 Stark. Ev. 374; Greenfield's Estate, 2 Harris 489; Hallenbeck v. Dewitt, 2 Johns. 404; Sherwood v. Salmon, 2 Day 136. The evidence of fraud must be clear: Irwin v. Shoemaker, 8 W. & S. 75; Dean v. Fuller, 4 Wright 474; Stine v. Sherk, 1 W. & S. 195; Iddings v. Iddings, 7 S. & R. 111. Especially since the Evidence Act of 1869: Martin v. Berens, 17 P. F. Smith 459. Parol evidence was not admitted in Jarvis v. Palmer, 11 Paige 650; Strong v. Dean, 55 Barb. 337; Stearns v. Tappin, 5 Duer 294; Piersons v. Hooker, 3 Johns. 68; Van Brunt v. Van-Brunt, 3 Ed. Ch. 14.

J. C. McAlarney and J. W. Simonton, for defendant in error. —The part of the charge assigned for error was strongly for the defendant below; the court could not refuse to let the evidence go to the jury, being the evidence of a competent witness. This was a legal defence, and therefore Ballentine v. White, 27 P. F. Smith 27, does not apply.

Mr. Justice SHARSWOOD delivered the opinion of the court, June 2d 1876.

The only error assigned is to the charge of the court on the subject of the release by the plaintiff given in evidence by the defendant. Its execution was not denied. It was submitted to the jury to find whether it was obtained by fraud. There was no evidence given upon the trial, as far as appears upon this record, to justify such a submission. The learned judge himself said in his charge: "Whilst the credibility of the witnesses and weight of evidence is for you, we do not hesitate to say that we fail to see any sufficient evidence to justify the jury in a conclusion of fraud to set aside the written evidence, the release in this case." Why then should it have been submitted? The scintilla doctrine has been long exploded. If, believing the plaintiff's witnesses, there was not enough upon which to found a reasonable conclusion, it is not a question of the weight of evidence, but there is no evidence at all.

Putting aside entirely the testimony of Williams, the subscribing witness, who swore that Shay had agreed before to execute such a release if he was paid the funeral expenses of his child; that he read to him the release portion — explained it to him; that he thereupon took the paper in his hand for two minutes and then signed; there was nothing in Shay's own testimony to raise the question. All he said was: "I went to see him (Williams) — paper lying before him; he told me here is receipt of funeral. I signed and he paid me. I can't read or write. (Release shown witness.) This is my name. I may have signed it twice. The paper was not read to me." He does not pretend that he told Williams that he could not read and asked to have it read or explained. There was nothing untrue in what he says...