De Benneville v. De Benneville
1 Binn. 46, 1803 Pa. LEXIS 10
Opinion
I examined this question a long time since, and this was the result; a witness subpoenaed though not examined has a right to payment; so if examined though not subpoenaed. A party has a right to call as many witnesses as he thinks are necessary to make out his case. Where there is oppression it must be proved, and the court will lay their hands upon it; but it is not to be presumed.
There must be proof of oppression, which does not seem to be the case here.
The bill of costs, as it has been taxed by the prothonotary, is confirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
De Benneville v. De Benneville, 1 Binn. 46, 1803 Pa. LEXIS 10 (Pa. 1803).
1 Binn. 46 (De Benneville v. De Benneville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Kugler
50 Pa. D. & C. 372 (Northampton County Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1944)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Fid. Land Value Assur. Co.
167 A. 300 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Gunnison v. Gunnison
41 N.H. 121 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1860)
Willink v. Recele
19 Wend. 82 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)
Commercial Bank v. Ross
1 Del. Cas. 586 (Delaware Court of Common Pleas, 1819)