Hunter v. Bremer

Citations

• 256 Pa. 257
• 100 A. 809
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 598

Syllabus

<p>Statutes — Construction—“Residence” — Limitation of actions— Act of May 22, 1895, P. L. 112.</p> <p>1. In ascertaining the meaning of the word “residence” in a particular statute the legislative purpose, as well as the context, should be kept in view.</p> <p>2. The Act of May 22, 1895, P. L. 112, which provides that “defendants.......who shall have become nonresident of the state after said cause of action shall have arisen shall not have the benefit of any statute of this state for the limitation of actions during the period of such residence without the state,” contemplates simply a residence of such permanency that the person in question may be found here and served with ordinary legal process, generally speaking,‘at any time.</p> <p>Raymond v. Leishman, 243 Pa. 64, compared and followed.</p> <p>Evidence — Offer relevant in part only.</p> <p>3. When evidence offered is relevant in part only the court is not bound to separate the good from the bad, but may reject it as a whole.</p> <p>Practice, Supreme Court — After-discovered evidence — Refusal of new trial — Discretion—Charge—Failure to reguest — Exceptions.</p> <p>4. Whether or not a new trial shall be granted to let in after-discovered evidence is a matter for the trial court, and the refusal of a new trial in such case will never be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.</p> <p>5. Where a party makes no special request for charge and does not except specially to the instructions, the appellate court will not reverse for mere inadequacy in the charge.</p>