Dike v. Kuhns

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

Dike v. Kuhns

7 F. Cas. 696, 5 Pitts L.J. 239, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 581

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 18, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 7 F. Cas. 696 (Dike v. Kuhns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dike v. Kuhns, 7 F. Cas. 696, 5 Pitts L.J. 239, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 581 (circtwdpa 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIER, Circuit Justice,

although intimating that if the question had been a new one, he might have ruled it otherwise, declined the comparison of the merits of the two opinions, on the ground that, sitting here in Pennsylvania, it was his duty, in order to avoid a conflict of opinion, to take the law as he found it last decided, but without expressing an opinion as to what might be his course in case the question should be carried elsewhere. This is about the substance of what he was understood to say. Admitting the evidence, therefore, which was offered to show a parol republication, he instructed the jury that it must be of two witnesses, proving the intention to republish and establishing the identity of the will beyond all question.

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

GRIER, Circuit Justice,

although intimating that if the question had been a new one, he might have ruled it otherwise, declined the comparison of the merits of the two opinions, on the ground that, sitting here in Pennsylvania, it was his duty, in order to avoid a conflict of opinion, to take the law as he found it last decided, but without expressing an opinion as to what might be his course in case the question should be carried elsewhere. This is about the substance of what he was understood to say. Admitting the evidence, therefore, which was offered to show a parol republication, he instructed the jury that it must be of two witnesses, proving the intention to republish and establishing the identity of the will beyond all question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F. Cas. 696, 5 Pitts L.J. 239, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dike-v-kuhns-circtwdpa-1857.