Dennick v. Scheiwer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Dennick v. Scheiwer

113 A.2d 318, 381 Pa. 200, 1955 Pa. LEXIS 469

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 18, 1955

DocketAppeal, 45

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 113 A.2d 318 (Dennick v. Scheiwer) 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

Dennick v. Scheiwer, 113 A.2d 318, 381 Pa. 200, 1955 Pa. LEXIS 469 (Pa. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Arnold,

In this action for trespass the plaintiff declared (a) for damages under the Death Statute of 1851, P. L. 669, 12 PS §1601, and (b) for damages on a survival action. The verdict was for the defendant. The case for the plaintiff consisted in (1) circumstantial evidence, which of course was for the jury, and (2) alleged admissions of the defendant made by him to police officers at the scene of the accident. The defendant denied the testimony of the officers. The plaintiff ashed for a new trial on the ground that the defendant was permitted to testify generally, i.e. was a competent witness, which was refused.

The defendant ivas a competent witness generally. The Act of June 11, 1891, P. L. 287, section 1, 28 PS §325, is not applicable to the present facts. The Act of May 23, 1887, P. L. 158, section 5, clause [e], 28 PS §322, begins Avith the Avords, “Nor, where any party to a thing or contract in action is dead . . . and his right thereto or therein has passed ... by the act of the laAV, to a party on the record who represents his interest in the subject in controArersy, shall any surviving or remaining party to such thing ... be a competent witness to any matter occurring before the death of said party ...” (Italics supplied). The plaintiff declared, inter alia, under the Death Statute, and under that Act defendant is a competent Avitness, for the reason that the action of Avrongful death is not for damages sustained by the decedent but for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the decedent’s death: *202 Mann v. Weiand, 81* Pa. 243, 256, 257; State of Mis souri ex rel. William Thomas v. Charles H. Daues et al., Judges of St. Louis Court of Appeals, (Mo.), 283 S. W. 51, 45 A.L.R. 1466. While Mann v. Weiand was decided under the Competency of Witness Act, 1869, P. L. 30, the reasoning is still applicable to the Act of 1887, supra, and the Act of 1891, P. L. 287, 28 PS §325. The court below well said: “To tell the jury to listen to the defendant in one claim and close its ear in the other might possibly be technically correct but practically senseless.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Arnold,

In this action for trespass the plaintiff declared (a) for damages under the Death Statute of 1851, P. L. 669, 12 PS §1601, and (b) for damages on a survival action. The verdict was for the defendant. The case for the plaintiff consisted in (1) circumstantial evidence, which of course was for the jury, and (2) alleged admissions of the defendant made by him to police officers at the scene of the accident. The defendant denied the testimony of the officers. The plaintiff ashed for a new trial on the ground that the defendant was permitted to testify generally, i.e. was a competent witness, which was refused.

The defendant ivas a competent witness generally. The Act of June 11, 1891, P. L. 287, section 1, 28 PS §325, is not applicable to the present facts. The Act of May 23, 1887, P. L. 158, section 5, clause [e], 28 PS §322, begins Avith the Avords, “Nor, where any party to a thing or contract in action is dead . . . and his right thereto or therein has passed ... by the act of the laAV, to a party on the record who represents his interest in the subject in controArersy, shall any surviving or remaining party to such thing ... be a competent witness to any matter occurring before the death of said party ...” (Italics supplied). The plaintiff declared, inter alia, under the Death Statute, and under that Act defendant is a competent Avitness, for the reason that the action of Avrongful death is not for damages sustained by the decedent but for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the decedent’s death: *202 Mann v. Weiand, 81* Pa. 243, 256, 257; State of Mis souri ex rel. William Thomas v. Charles H. Daues et al., Judges of St. Louis Court of Appeals, (Mo.), 283 S. W. 51, 45 A.L.R. 1466. While Mann v. Weiand was decided under the Competency of Witness Act, 1869, P. L. 30, the reasoning is still applicable to the Act of 1887, supra, and the Act of 1891, P. L. 287, 28 PS §325. The court below well said: “To tell the jury to listen to the defendant in one claim and close its ear in the other might possibly be technically correct but practically senseless.”

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.2d 318, 381 Pa. 200, 1955 Pa. LEXIS 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennick-v-scheiwer-pa-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack