Pool ex rel. Peter S. Pool & Son v. White

Citations

• 175 Pa. 459
• 34 A. 801
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1273

Syllabus

<p>Practice, 8. C. — Exceptions—Allowance of exceptions nunc pro tunc.</p> <p>After an appeal to the Supreme Court has been quashed because no exceptions had been taken, the court below may subsequently, with the consent of both parties, allow the exceptions and direct the charge to be filed of record, and in such a case the Supreme Court reinstated the appeal and considered the case as if the exceptions and the charge had been taken and filed at the trial.</p> <p>Judgments— Opening judgments — Evidence.</p> <p>A bank held nine promissory notes of defendant aggregating over $50,000. His account had also been overdrawn to the extent of over $50,000. Subsequently the defendant gave to the bank ten judgment notes for $5,000 each, which were duly entered up. Defendant claimed that the judgment notes had been given in full settlement of all his indebtedness including both the promissory notes and the over draft. On a rule to open the judgments the court directed the issue to be made by the plea of payment, and the evidence to be confined to that matter. Held, (1) that the burden of proof was on the defendant, not only under the pleadings, but also because the execution of the notes was admitted; (2) that certain deposit slips which defendant claimed were not credited to him were admissible in evidence with the explanation of the plaintiff that they were accidentally misdated, and were duly credited in the account at their proper dates.</p> <p>Practice, O. P. — Charge of court — Comments by judge.</p> <p>When the testimony is out of the ordinary juror’s experience and the action involves loose and irregular banking transactions extending over a number of years and running into large figures, the judge is justified in commenting on the evidence with more than usual particularity and in assisting the jury, by pointing out clearly the bearing of the various items of evidence, and he may even allow his opinions to be seen without tres, passing on the jury’s province to decide