Feingold v. Katz

Citations

• 43 Pa. Super. 333
• 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 49

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Examination of witness — Offer of proof — Failure to make offer.</p> <p>Where an assignment of error is to the rejection of an offer, made at the proper time, to prove relevant and material facts by a competent witness, it must be assumed by the appellate court that if the evidence had been admitted it would have come up to the offer; but where a question insufficient in itself, is not accompanied by an offer, and the court overrules it, there is nothing before-the appellate court by which it can determine whether the party asking the question had been injured, and the assignment of error will be overruled. In such a case it is the duty of. the party to make a proper offer so as to show the relevancy of the question. The fact that if the question had been more specific, it would have been objectionable as leading, is not an excuse for failing to make a proper offer.</p>