Hess v. Vinton Colliery Co.

Citations

• 255 Pa. 78
• 99 A. 218
• 14 A.L.R. 1
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 531

Syllabus

<p>Beal property — Water rights — Trespass—Statement of claim— Amendments — Trials—Evidence—Original statement as evidence —Witnesses—Oredibility—Testimony at former trial — Admissions —Proof of stenographer’s notes — Waiver—Practice, O. P.</p> <p>1. When a contract is made for the sale of land, equity considers the vendee as the purchaser of the estate sold.</p> <p>2. In an action brought by two plaintiffs for injuries to a mill caused by the deposit of the refuse of a colliery in a stream from January, 1906, until the date of suit in 1911, an amendment to the statement which named one individual only as the plaintiff, and which averred that he had purchased the property in April, 1909, under an agreement with the other party named as plaintiff in the original statement, and that the trespasses complained of had begun in April, 1909, and continued until the time oí bringing the suit, was properly allowed, although no conveyance of the legal title to the plaintiff was averred.</p> <p>3. At the trial of such case it was competent for the defendant to offer in evidence the plaintiff’s original statement for the purpose of showing that the acts complained of, were in part committed before the time when plaintiff acquired title,'so that for such injuries the plaintiff would have no right of action.</p> <p>4. In such case it was error for the trial judge to refuse to admit in evidence the testimony of plaintiff at a former hearing to the effect that he had told the party named as plaintiff in the original statement, that he would throw down the agreement'of sale as the property was depreciating; that the agreement of sale was to be annulled, and that after that date the management between them was a partnership, as such evidence tended to affect plaintiff’s rights to recover in his individual capacity; but where it appeared that on cross-examination plaintiff testified to the same facts, so that the knowledge of the plaintiff’s testimony at the former hearing was brought