Cullum v. Wagstaff
| Decision Date | 01 January 1864 |
| Parties | Cullum versus Wagstaff. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Heydrick & Snowden, for plaintiff in error.
John S. McCalmont, for defendant.
The point made by the plaintiff in error upon the bill of exception to the admission of evidence of the price of oil-barrels at Franklin and Oil City is, that it was the market value at Meadville which should govern. The bill merely states that the plaintiff offered to prove the price at these places for the purpose of showing damages, to which the defendant objected. But on what ground did he object? His bill does not inform us. The ground stated orally to the court might be entirely insufficient. Great injustice might be done to the court below in presuming it was upon the ground taken here. A judge is not bound, nay, cannot always think of every objection which can be urged. He decides upon the objection stated by the counsel, and it is the duty of counsel to see that his point goes fairly into the bill. In legal contemplation the bill is drawn up and presented by the party who excepts, and though a note of it at the time is sufficient, it is his duty to see that the bill is made up correctly before it is tacked to the record.
The party offering evidence is bound, if requested, to state the purpose of it fully, and the party who objects must state his objection. If he decline to do so, it is good ground for the court to overrule a general objection; or if the record go up on a general objection only, the ruling of the court will be sustained if the evidence be proper for any purpose: Milliken v. Barr, 7 Barr 23; Richardson v. Stewart, 4 Binn. 201; Benner v. Hauser, 11 S. & R. 356; Small v. Jones, 6 W. & S. 125. These rules are necessary to prevent injustice both to court and parties. This bill does not fairly raise the point we are asked to decide.
We see no error in the answer to the defendant's first point. The court could not answer it as requested without charging the facts stated in it to be true. These facts were not admitted, and the court therefore left them to the jury with instructions upon the effect of the contract, and the duty of the parties under it.
The contract required the defendant to put the last five hundred barrels upon the boat then lying in French creek, which by the same contract he sold to the plaintiff. He was to be paid for the barrels by a draft as soon as they were delivered on board of the boat in French creek, "preparatory for running out on the first water." The barrels were not delivered on board, but were merely held in readiness for delivery when the rise in the water came. The court therefore charged that the defendant was bound to notify the plaintiff of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Garrison
...cert. denied, 412 U.S. 943, 93 S.Ct. 2775, 39 L.Ed.2d 404 (1973); Commonwealth v. Marshall, 287 Pa. 512, 135 A. 301 (1926); Cullum v. Wagstaff, 48 Pa. 300 (1864), and that "it is through such colloquy that the judge may recognize his mistake and prevent error from infecting the record." In ......
-
Trautman v. Schroeder
...S.W. 781; Central Flour Mills Company v. Gateway Milling Company (Mo. App.), 213 S.W. 131; Kirkpatrick v. Alexander, 44 Ind. 595; Cullum v. Wagstaff, 48 Pa. 300; Spooner v. Baxter, 16 Pick. 409; Sears v. Conover, 34 Barb. 330; McNairy v. Bishop, 8 Dana 150; Bellows v. McKenzie, 212 Mass. 60......
-
Commonwealth v. Marshall
... ... the evidence will not be adjudged erroneous if it was ... competent for any purpose: Cullum v. Wagstaff, 48 ... Pa. 300, 303; Dietrich v. Davies, 274 Pa. 213, 216; ... Murray v. Frick, 277 Pa. 190, 195. The objection was ... treated ... ...
-
Lubin Mfg. Co. v. Swaab
...6 Binney 24; White v. Kyle, 1 S. & R. 515; Hamilton v. Menor, 2 S. & R. 70; Philadelphia & Trenton R.R. Co. v. Hagan, 47 Pa. 244; Cullum v. Wagstaff, 48 Pa. 300; Loeb v. Mellinger, 12 Pa.Super. 592; Troxell v. Malin, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 483; Lehigh Coal & Nav. Co. v. Evans, 176 Pa. 28; Com. ......