Ohio Valley Lumber Co. v. Blanarik

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ohio Valley Lumber Co. v. Blanarik

141 A. 476, 292 Pa. 574, 1928 Pa. LEXIS 653

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 20, 1928

DocketAppeal, 12

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 141 A. 476 (Ohio Valley Lumber Co. v. Blanarik) 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

Ohio Valley Lumber Co. v. Blanarik, 141 A. 476, 292 Pa. 574, 1928 Pa. LEXIS 653 (Pa. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

In defending an action for goods sold and delivered, one of defendants testified that he had paid to plaintiff, on account, the sum of $1,779.85 in cash, which he said he had received when he “sold a house on 12th Street.” In rebuttal, plaintiff called the recorder of deeds of the county, who, subject to objection and exception, was permitted to testify that the records of his office showed but one conveyance made by that defendant within six months before or after the date of the alleged payment to plaintiff. The admission of this testimony is the only error assigned. Defendants later acknowledged in the court below, and again here, that the recorded conveyance was the one referred to by the witness. Hence what we are now asked to do is to sustain the impossible contention, legally speaking, that defendants were injured by the admission of evidence which in reality corroborated their story. This we decline to do.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

In defending an action for goods sold and delivered, one of defendants testified that he had paid to plaintiff, on account, the sum of $1,779.85 in cash, which he said he had received when he “sold a house on 12th Street.” In rebuttal, plaintiff called the recorder of deeds of the county, who, subject to objection and exception, was permitted to testify that the records of his office showed but one conveyance made by that defendant within six months before or after the date of the alleged payment to plaintiff. The admission of this testimony is the only error assigned. Defendants later acknowledged in the court below, and again here, that the recorded conveyance was the one referred to by the witness. Hence what we are now asked to do is to sustain the impossible contention, legally speaking, that defendants were injured by the admission of evidence which in reality corroborated their story. This we decline to do.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A. 476, 292 Pa. 574, 1928 Pa. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-valley-lumber-co-v-blanarik-pa-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack