Bates v. Carter Construction Co.

Citations

• 255 Pa. 200
• 99 A. 813
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 548

Syllabus

<p>Witnesses — Competency — Action. against corporation — Statements of stockholder — Death of stockholder — Plaintiff as witness— Act of May 88,1887, P. L. 158.</p> <p>1. Since the passage of the Act of Mgy 23, 1887, P. L. 158, the court must discountenance all objections t,o the competency of a witness on the ground of interest and policy unless they be made clearly to appear.</p> <p>2. In an action against a corporation the plaintiff is not rendered incompetent to testify as to certain relevant conversations between himself and a former officer and stockholder of the defendant company who died before the trial. It is the individual, personal, adverse interest which works a disqualification,</p> <p>Contracts — Becision—Evidence—Set-off—Assignment—Time of performance unstated- — -Prematurity of action — Change of place of performance — Increased cost — Measure of' damages — Loss of profits — Case for jury.</p> <p>3. ' In an action by a subcontractor against a general contractor to recover a balance due for work performed and for profits, which plaintiff alleged he would have made, had he been permitted to complefe his contract, it appeared that after plaintiff had performed a part of the work defendant had rescinded the contract. Defendant offered evidence that it had paid directly to a subcontractor of plaintiff, part of an amount due by plaintiff' to said subcontractor and sought to set off such' payment against plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff alleged that under his contract with such subcontractor such payment was not due the subcontractor until after plaintiff had been paid by defendant, and consequently the payment by defendant was unauthorized. It appeared that the subcontractor had attached payments due plaintiff in the hands of defendant and that defendant, upon paying the subcontractor, had taken an assignment of his claim against plaintiff. Held, that the evidence was admissible. ,</p> <p>4. Where in such case it appeared that plaintiff had made a partial as