Patterson v. Dushane

Citations

• 137 Pa. 23
• 20 A. 538
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 946

Syllabus

<p>1. When the question is, whether certain government bonds belonged to the estate of a decedent, an interested witness may testify that after the decedent’s death he found them on deposit in a bank in her name. That this fact would be inferential proof that they were so deposited in the decedent’s lifetime, does not render the witness’s testimony incompetent : Rothroek v. Gallaher, 91 Pa. 108.</p> <p>2. When the deposition of a deceased witness has been read in evidence, it is competent, for the purpose of affecting its credibility, to show that the witness, after the deposition was taken, declared that he had made a certain mistake in his testimony; though, if he were living, he should first be recalled and asked whether he made such declaration.</p> <p>3. But, where the declaration of the deposing witness was merely that he had made a mistake in his testimony, without saying what the mistake was, then, even if proof of his declaration were inadmissible, the declaration would be of insignificant consequence, and its admission not error.</p> <p>4. A distributee, who, with knowledge that certain securities have been inventoried as part of a decedent’s estate and accounted for in the executor’s settlement, confirmed by the Orphans’ Court, accepts, in accordance with a decree of distribution, a share of a fund made up in part of their proceeds, is estopped from afterwards asserting that they were his own private property.</p>