Thomas v. Miller

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtMITCHELL, J.
Citation25 A. 127,151 Pa.St. 482
PartiesTHOMAS v. MILLER.
Decision Date31 October 1892
25 A. 127
151 Pa.St. 482

THOMAS
v.
MILLER.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 31, 1892.


Appeal from court of common pleas, Armstrong county; Calvin Rayburn, Judge.

Petition by Philip Miller, executor of Richard Elliott; deceased, to open judgment entered on a judgment note in favor of Sarah A. Thomas and against the said Elliott. The judgment was opened in accordance with petition, trial had, and judgment again entered in favor of Sarah A. Thomas as plaintiff, and against the said Elliott as defendant. Miller appeals Reversed.

Following are the 3d, 4th, and 6th assignments of error:

" Third. The court erred in overruling the following offer of evidence, being the cross-examination of Samuel Thomas, as follows: 'Question. What day of the week was it that this note was signed? Answer. It was on Wednesday or Thursday. It was on Thursday. Q. Now, which was it, Wednesday or Thursday? A. Thursday. Q. How do you know that? A. 1 got the almanac,—my sister got the almanac,—and looked. Q. When did you look at the almanac? A. Right there and then. Q. Why did you look at the almanac right there and then? Mr.

McCain: Objected to. It is not cross-examination. Mr. Patton: It is to fix the time. Mr. McCain: The date is not material. It is the execution of the note. The Court: We will sustain the objection. Bill of exceptions sealed to defendant."

"Fourth. The court erred in overruling the following offer of evidence, being the cross-examination of Samuel Thomas, as follows: 'Mr. Patton: Yes, and we will get him home again, too. Mr. Leason: Well, we will limit him to Armstrong Co., unless the court rules the other way. Make your proposition of what you propose to prove. Mr. Patton: We propose to show by the witness that from the time he left home until he returned he saw no person that he knew. This is for the purpose of showing the res gest? and circumstances surrounding the alleged forgery of the note. Mr. Leason: It is objected to as irrelevant, the witness being under cross-examination, and called to prove the execution of a paper in Armstrong county. The Court: We think we will sustain that objection. Bill of exceptions sealed.'"

"Sixth. The court erred in admitting the following offer of evidence, being the testimony of David Lowden, as follows: 'Question. You know Dr. Elliott, here, do you? Answer. Yes. Q. Did he call on you to-day at any time? A. Yes. Q. State to the court and jury if he threatened you there with prosecution if you came here and testified. Mr. Patton: We object to that. That is not at issue here. Dr. Elliott is not a party to this case. The Court: We will overrule the objection. Bill of exceptions sealed. Q. State what this man Elliott went...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1899
    ...testified to in chief. (Blake v. Powell, 26 Kan. 320; Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319; Wilson v. Wager, 26 Mich. 452; Thomas v. Miller, 151 Pa. St. 482, 25 A. 127; Mayer v. People, 80 N.Y. 364; People v. Dixon, 94 Cal. 255, 29 P. 504; Black v. Wabash R. R. Co., 111 Ill. 351, 53 Am. Rep. 628......
  • Walters v. McElroy, 241
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 31, 1892
    ...be determined what the purchasers ought upon their part to perform: Soles v. Hickman, 20 Pa. 180. The defendants might, however, upon the [25 A. 127] authority of [151 Pa. 557] Bowser v. Cravener, 56 Pa. 132, and Tripp v. Bishop, Id. 424, show, if they could, by parol evidence, that B. Heid......
  • Moore v. Utah Idaho Cent. R. Co., 3203
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 11, 1918
    ...v. Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co., 11 N.D. 280, 91 N.W. 436; Gussner v. Hawks, 13 N.D. 453, 101 N.W. 898; Thomas v. Miller, 151 Pa. 482, 25 A. 127. The cases cited by appellant do not bear out its contention when applied to the facts in the instant case. The court did not err in permitti......
  • Walkley v. Clarke
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 31, 1899
    ...of justice, and is due the opposite party. Kilbourne v. Jennings, 40 Iowa, 474; Grant v. Pendery, 15 Kan. 236; Thomas v. Miller, 151 Pa. St. 482, 25 Atl. 128;Converse v. Meyer, 14 Neb. 190, 15 N. W. 340. When offered by the opposite party, such parts may be received as relate to any distinc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1899
    ...testified to in chief. (Blake v. Powell, 26 Kan. 320; Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319; Wilson v. Wager, 26 Mich. 452; Thomas v. Miller, 151 Pa. St. 482, 25 A. 127; Mayer v. People, 80 N.Y. 364; People v. Dixon, 94 Cal. 255, 29 P. 504; Black v. Wabash R. R. Co., 111 Ill. 351, 53 Am. Rep. 628......
  • Walters v. McElroy, 241
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 31, 1892
    ...be determined what the purchasers ought upon their part to perform: Soles v. Hickman, 20 Pa. 180. The defendants might, however, upon the [25 A. 127] authority of [151 Pa. 557] Bowser v. Cravener, 56 Pa. 132, and Tripp v. Bishop, Id. 424, show, if they could, by parol evidence, that B. Heid......
  • Moore v. Utah Idaho Cent. R. Co., 3203
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 11, 1918
    ...v. Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co., 11 N.D. 280, 91 N.W. 436; Gussner v. Hawks, 13 N.D. 453, 101 N.W. 898; Thomas v. Miller, 151 Pa. 482, 25 A. 127. The cases cited by appellant do not bear out its contention when applied to the facts in the instant case. The court did not err in permitting p......
  • Walkley v. Clarke
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 31, 1899
    ...of justice, and is due the opposite party. Kilbourne v. Jennings, 40 Iowa, 474; Grant v. Pendery, 15 Kan. 236; Thomas v. Miller, 151 Pa. St. 482, 25 Atl. 128;Converse v. Meyer, 14 Neb. 190, 15 N. W. 340. When offered by the opposite party, such parts may be received as relate to any distinc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT