Eifert v. Lytle

Citations

• 172 Pa. 356
• 33 A. 573
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 783

Syllabus

<p>Trespass for cutting timber — Evidence—Charge of Court — Boundaries.</p> <p>In an action of trespass for cutting timber where the defendants request the court to charge that as the line claimed by the plaintiffs gave them more land than their deed called for, and the defendants less land than their deed called for, this circumstance should have great weight in sustaining the latter’s contention that the line claimed by defendants was the true line between the parties, it is proper for the court to decline to say that great weight should be given to such a circumstance, and to instruct the jury that it should be accurately weighed in favor of the line claimed by the defendants, and that it, is for the jury to determine what weight should be afforded to it in connection with the other circumstances in the case.</p> <p>Trespass for cutting timber — Declarations.</p> <p>In an action of trespass for cutting timber, while any act or declaration of the plaintiffs opposed to and tending to discredit their contention on the trial is admissible and calculated to weaken their claim concerning the true location of their land, it cannot operate as a bar to their right to compensation for the timber cut by the defendants on plaintiffs’ land unless the defendants in cutting it were misled or influenced by such act or declaration.</p> <p>Evidence — Motion to withdraw evidence — Testimony partly, incompetent —Practice, C. P.</p> <p>Where a motion is made to withdraw evidence from the consideration of the jury, if a part of the testimony is incompetent, and a part of it competent, the motion must be confined to the objectionable part.</p> <p>The court is not bound to strike out evidence admitted without objection, when the fact upon which its exclusion is claimed was known to the opposite party when the evidence was given.</p>