Bussier v. Weekey

Citations

• 11 Pa. Super. 463
• 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 157

Syllabus

<p>Jurisdiction, equity — Restraint of trespass.</p> <p>Under the Act of June 16, 1836, P. L. 784, the court has undoubted power to restrain the commission of trespasses where the remedy at law will be inadequate. If the trespass is fugitive and temporary, then adequate compensation can be obtained by action at law, and there is no ground to justify the interposition of a court of equity. If, on the other hand, trespasses are constantly recurring and threatening to continue, or if the threatened trespass contemplates a permanent occupation and use of the plaintiff’s property, the rule is'different and the jurisdiction is sustained.</p> <p>Equity pleading — Probative effect of answer — Balance of proof — Rules of evidence-</p> <p>The answer must be responsivé to the bill in order to give it the probative effect which requires the testimony of two persons or its equivalent to establish the balance of proof in favor of the plaintiff.</p> <p>To give the answer this probative character two things are essential: (1) It must be confined to the matters averred in the bill, negativing, qualifying or explaining them and not going beyond and setting up distinct matters in avoidance or defense. (2) The response must be from the defendant’s own knowledge as he would testify if examined as a witness except iu the rare cases in which he is called upon to answer also as to information and belief.</p> <p>A failure in these two essentials limits the effect of the answer merely to putting the plaintiff to the necessity of proving the facts alleged in his bill, and the rule requiring' two witnesses, or one witness with corroborating circumstances, to counteract its effect does not apply.</p> <p>Except as to the effect of a responsive answer in equity, the burden of proof and the rules of evidence are the same at law and in equity.</p>