Kerr v. McClure
| Decision Date | 05 January 1920 |
| Docket Number | 81 |
| Citation | 266 Pa. 103,109 A. 600 |
| Parties | Kerr v. McClure, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 16, 1919
Appeal, No. 81, Oct. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1917, No. 1426, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary A. Kerr v. Samuel R. McClure. Affirmed.
Interpleader to determine ownership of fund paid into court. Before WASSON, J.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were admission of evidence, in refusing binding instructions and judgment for defendant n.o.v.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Wm. C Jacob, with him Mead J. Mulvihill and James L. Adams, for appellant, cited: Lowry v. Roy, 238 Pa. 9; General M.T. Co. v. Phila. Pav. Co., 248 Pa. 499; Williams v. Notopolus, 259 Pa. 469; Dusenberry v Mut. L. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 188 Pa. 454.
Albert Barnes Smith, with him L. K. & S. G. Porter, for appellee, cited: Bartley v. Phillips, 165 Pa. 325.
Before BROWN, C.J., MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON and KEPHART, JJ.
Defendant was a creditor of plaintiff's husband, whose life was insured in the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company by three policies aggregating $7,500. The policies were in favor of plaintiff but had been assigned by her to defendant "In consideration of One Dollar or as his interest may appear." After the death of the husband plaintiff claimed a portion of the fund and defendant claimed the whole of it, an interpleader was asked for and the court ordered the amount not in dispute to be paid to defendant, the balance paid into court, and an issue framed to determine who was entitled to it.
At the trial plaintiff and her witnesses testified defendant came to the home of her husband and herself while the husband was extremely ill, and urged him to have the policies transferred to defendant. Her husband asked her to do it, she at first refused, but upon defendant's promise to pay her $2,700 thereout if she did, she consented to do so, and an assignment was made as above set forth. When the facts stated were offered to be proved defendant objected because the offer did not aver that anything was omitted from the assignment by fraud, accident or mistake. The court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. The jury found a verdict in favor of plaintiff and defendant appealed to this court, assigning as error the admission of the evidence despite his objection as above stated, the refusal of his point for binding instructions, and the dismissal of his ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heller v. Heller's Executors
...Kessler, 252 Pa. 244, 249-50; Savings Fund and Loan Ass'n v. Fox, 253 Pa. 257, 259-60; Sales Co. v. Farrell, 264 Pa. 149, 153; Kerr v. McClure, 266 Pa. 103, 105; Milk Products Co. v. Marcus, 272 Pa. 340, 344. But where the written contract is a direct negation of the oral agreement, the lat......
-
Bryant v. Bryant
...subject-matter of the writing of January 15, 1925, and such an admission allows plaintiff to show what the true understanding was: Kerr v. McClure, 266 Pa. 103; Federal Sales Co. v. Farrell, 264 Pa. O'Bara v. Bielecka, 279 Pa. 307; Ward v. Zeigler, 285 Pa. 557. The paper is not between the ......
-
Giant Food Stores v. MARKETPLACE COMMUNICATIONS
...party has the right to show what the true facts were regarding the matter thus resting in parol. Ward v. Zeigler, supra; Kerr v. McClure, 266 Pa. 103, 109 A. 600. 370 Pa. at 266-67, 88 A.2d at Defendant also glibly argues, without citation to any authority, and as if it were hornbook law, t......
-
U.S. Nat. Bank of Johnstown v. Evans
...cannot now be permitted to repudiate the agreement and understanding because it induced the maker of the note to execute it: Kerr v. McClure, 266 Pa. 103; v. Grocery Co., 65 Pa.Super. 586; Faux v. Fitler, 223 Pa. 568; Federal Sales Co. v. Farrell, 264 Pa. 149; Greenawalt v. Kohne, 85 Pa. 36......