Young v. Senft

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Young v. Senft

25 A. 778, 153 Pa. 352, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1108

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 3, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 218

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 A. 778 (Young v. Senft) 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

Young v. Senft, 25 A. 778, 153 Pa. 352, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1108 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Wo find nothing to criticise in the rulings of the learned judge below, either upon the points submitted, or in his general charge. Nor do we think that Mary Senft was an incompetent witness. Her case does not come within any of the exceptions of any of the acts of assembly, relating to the competency of witnesses, nor do we think it comes within their spirit. She was not called to testify against her husband, or against his title. The plaintiff made both Frederick Senft, and his wife, defendants. They both joined in and filed an abstract of title by which they both alleged that Mary Senft was the lawful owner of the property in dispute. It will be [360]*360noticed that no objection was made to the witness by reason of the death of Mary Young, the original plaintiff. The case closely resembles that of Van Horne v. Clark, 126 Pa. 411.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Wo find nothing to criticise in the rulings of the learned judge below, either upon the points submitted, or in his general charge. Nor do we think that Mary Senft was an incompetent witness. Her case does not come within any of the exceptions of any of the acts of assembly, relating to the competency of witnesses, nor do we think it comes within their spirit. She was not called to testify against her husband, or against his title. The plaintiff made both Frederick Senft, and his wife, defendants. They both joined in and filed an abstract of title by which they both alleged that Mary Senft was the lawful owner of the property in dispute. It will be [360]*360noticed that no objection was made to the witness by reason of the death of Mary Young, the original plaintiff. The case closely resembles that of Van Horne v. Clark, 126 Pa. 411.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 778, 153 Pa. 352, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-senft-pa-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack