Deitrich v. Kettering

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Deitrich v. Kettering

61 A. 927, 212 Pa. 356, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 615

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 22, 1905

DocketAppeal, No. 210

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 A. 927 (Deitrich v. Kettering) 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

Deitrich v. Kettering, 61 A. 927, 212 Pa. 356, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 615 (Pa. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

This action -was to recover damages for an injury caused by the bite of a vicious dog. The only assignment of error is to the order of the court striking out testimony which was admitted under a specific offer to prove that the dog attacked the witness before the plaintiff was bitten, and that of this the defendant had notice. The witness was unable to fix the time of the occurrence, and the testimony did not come up to the offer under which it was admitted. To the argument now made that the testimony was admissible to show the general behavior of the dog, it is a sufficient answer that it was not offered for that purpose. “ A party cannot offer evidence for a specific purpose and complain when it is rejected that it was legitimate for another and distinct purpose : ” Young v. Edwards, 72 Pa. 257.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam,

This action -was to recover damages for an injury caused by the bite of a vicious dog. The only assignment of error is to the order of the court striking out testimony which was admitted under a specific offer to prove that the dog attacked the witness before the plaintiff was bitten, and that of this the defendant had notice. The witness was unable to fix the time of the occurrence, and the testimony did not come up to the offer under which it was admitted. To the argument now made that the testimony was admissible to show the general behavior of the dog, it is a sufficient answer that it was not offered for that purpose. “ A party cannot offer evidence for a specific purpose and complain when it is rejected that it was legitimate for another and distinct purpose : ” Young v. Edwards, 72 Pa. 257.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A. 927, 212 Pa. 356, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deitrich-v-kettering-pa-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack