Com. Trust Co. of Pbg. v. Hugo

194 A. 904, 328 Pa. 116, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 619
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 1, 1937
DocketAppeal, 162
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 194 A. 904 (Com. Trust Co. of Pbg. v. Hugo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Com. Trust Co. of Pbg. v. Hugo, 194 A. 904, 328 Pa. 116, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 619 (Pa. 1937).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

This appeal is from the refusal to take off a compulsory nonsuit. The action is brought by the ancillary administrator of Rufus P. Wright to recover the amount received by defendant for three bonds which the plaintiff alleged belonged to decedent. The defendant is the decedent’s daughter. Plaintiff contended that defendant received the bonds from her father for a particular purpose and then converted them to her own use. Her defense was that the bonds were a gift to her. At the trial plaintiff called for cross-examination. She testified that the bonds were given to her by her father and that thereafter she dealt with them as her own.

Plaintiff offered in evidence a memorandum book kept by the father and found among his papers after his death. This book contained a written statement, which, standing by itself, would support the inference that a gift had not been made to the defendant but that she held the bonds as her father’s agent or bailee. It was excluded on the ground that it was a self-serving declaration not admissible for the purpose offered; the appellant, in support of its contention that the book was *118 wrongly excluded, cites cases in which a decedent’s books were admitted for the purpose of showing the testator made advancements to his children. Those cases do not aid the plaintiff in suit for breach of contract: see Laning’s Estate, 241 Pa. 98, 88 A. 289. Defendant’s testimony that the bonds were given to her was therefore not contradicted and plaintiff was bound by it: Dunmore v. Padden, 262 Pa. 436, 105 A. 559; Evans v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 322 Pa. 547, 186 A. 133. As the case was presented, the burden of proof was on plaintiff (Weaver v. Welsh, 325 Pa. 571, 191 A. 3) and was not met.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

WHITENIGHT v. Whitenight
278 A.2d 912 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Donsavage Estate
218 A.2d 112 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Hendrickson Estate
130 A.2d 143 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1957)
Carr Estate
92 A.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1952)
Ziegler Estate
79 Pa. D. & C. 425 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1952)
Flanagan v. Jennings
2 A.2d 722 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 A. 904, 328 Pa. 116, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-trust-co-of-pbg-v-hugo-pa-1937.