Wissahickon Mutual Fire Insurance v. Wannemacher

15 Pa. Super. 580, 1901 Pa. Super. LEXIS 393
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 22, 1901
DocketAppeal, No. 156
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 Pa. Super. 580 (Wissahickon Mutual Fire Insurance v. Wannemacher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wissahickon Mutual Fire Insurance v. Wannemacher, 15 Pa. Super. 580, 1901 Pa. Super. LEXIS 393 (Pa. Ct. App. 1901).

Opinion

Opinion by

Beaveb, J.,

The book entries attached to the plaintiff’s statement were not evidence and were properly rejected as such by the court below, as is evident from several considerations. 1. The statement is not based upon a book account but is “ for moneys collected by defendants on behalf of the said The Wissahickon Mutual Fire Insurance Company.” 2. The account itself upon its face shows it to be a ledger account with balances struck at different times and not an account taken from a book of original entries in the ordinary legal acceptation of that term. 3. The items contained in the account are not the subject of book entry, as recognized by universal usage and the authorities governing the same. 4. By the statment itself it would seem, and by the defendant’s testimony produced by the plaintiff it is clear that the relation subsisting between the plaintiff and the defendant, under which the policies of insurance were delivered, was under a special contract. 5. Even if the so-called book account had been admissible, the plaintiff suffered no wrong by its rejection, inasmuch as he called the defendant as a witness and proved the correctness of the entries and, therefore, had all the benefits which could have accrued to him, if the account had been admitted.

The defendant was called by the plaintiff as an adverse witness under the act of 1887 and could have been contradicted. He fully accounted for each and every item contained in the exhibit attached to the plaintiff’s statement. He was not contradicted in any way and the court was, therefore, justified in granting the nonsuit and in subsequently refusing to take it off.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Olewine v. Andrews
77 Pa. D. & C. 151 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Reed v. Schumacher
27 Pa. D. & C. 247 (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1936)
Buch & Myers v. Good
21 Pa. D. & C. 474 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Pa. Super. 580, 1901 Pa. Super. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wissahickon-mutual-fire-insurance-v-wannemacher-pasuperct-1901.