Furman v. Hill

Berks County Court of Common Pleas

Furman v. Hill

3 Pa. D. & C. 334, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 478

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County

DecidedDecember 23, 1922

DocketNo. 28

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pa. D. & C. 334 (Furman v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Furman v. Hill, 3 Pa. D. & C. 334, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 478 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Endlich, P. J.,

In this case of trespass, which arose' out of a collision between two automobiles on Aug. 29, 1920, one of the issues raised by the pleadings was the question of the defendant’s ownership of one of the cars at the time of the collision. The plaintiff offered as proof of defendant’s ownership a copy, certified under the hand and seal of the State Highway Commissioner, of the registration of the car on Jan. 19, 1920, as owned by the defendant. The offer was objected to upon the ground that the fact sought to be proved is not provable by certified copy of the registration, but, as insisted upon at the argument, only by the production of the records themselves. Similar certified copies of the vendor and vendee papers were also offered, objected to and admitted to show that the ownership of the car by the defendant continued until March 30, 1921.

It was declared by Chief Justice Tilghman, in Garwood v. Dennis, 4 Binn. 314, 326, that “necessity, either absolute or moral, is sufficient ground for dispensing with the usual rules of evidence” — a principle recognized in our jurisprudence ever since: see Rodgers v. Stophel, 32 Pa. 111, 113; Mish v. Wood, 34 Pa. 451, 454; Wagener v. Railway Co., 235 Pa. 559, 563; Com. v. Barr, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 609, 613; Com. v. Drum, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 156, 167. The application of that principle to the question before the court lies on the surface and need not be discussed.

The rule to show cause is discharged.

From Wellington M. Bertolet, Beading, Pa.

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

Endlich, P. J.,

In this case of trespass, which arose' out of a collision between two automobiles on Aug. 29, 1920, one of the issues raised by the pleadings was the question of the defendant’s ownership of one of the cars at the time of the collision. The plaintiff offered as proof of defendant’s ownership a copy, certified under the hand and seal of the State Highway Commissioner, of the registration of the car on Jan. 19, 1920, as owned by the defendant. The offer was objected to upon the ground that the fact sought to be proved is not provable by certified copy of the registration, but, as insisted upon at the argument, only by the production of the records themselves. Similar certified copies of the vendor and vendee papers were also offered, objected to and admitted to show that the ownership of the car by the defendant continued until March 30, 1921.

It was declared by Chief Justice Tilghman, in Garwood v. Dennis, 4 Binn. 314, 326, that “necessity, either absolute or moral, is sufficient ground for dispensing with the usual rules of evidence” — a principle recognized in our jurisprudence ever since: see Rodgers v. Stophel, 32 Pa. 111, 113; Mish v. Wood, 34 Pa. 451, 454; Wagener v. Railway Co., 235 Pa. 559, 563; Com. v. Barr, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 609, 613; Com. v. Drum, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 156, 167. The application of that principle to the question before the court lies on the surface and need not be discussed.

The rule to show cause is discharged.

From Wellington M. Bertolet, Beading, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pa. D. & C. 334, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furman-v-hill-pactcomplberks-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack