Powell v. Derickson

Citations

• 178 Pa. 612
• 36 A. 167
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 988

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Competency of witness as to imdispuled fact's not material— Review.</p> <p>Where specific matters proposed to be shown by a witness who is held to be incompetent by the trial court, are established by admittedly competent testimony, and are not disputed, the question of the competency of the witness is immaterial, and on appeal the Supreme Court will not consider the question.</p> <p>Evidence — Competency of witness — Partnership—Bank.</p> <p>D. was a member of a partnership conducting a bank from 1877 until his death in 1891. In 1886 G. deposited with the bank a large sum of money, and received a certificate of deposit therefor. He died intestate in 1887. In 1890 a partial payment was made upon the certificate and G.’s administrators accepted a new certificate for the balance. In 1893, after the death of D., another partial payment was made, and G.’s adminitrators accepted a new certificate for the balance. In an action by G.’s administrators against D.’s executors on the certificate, the evidence showed that D. was a prominent citizen of the city in which G.’s administrators lived, and was well known to them, and from 1887 until 1893, G.’s administrators had constant dealing with the partnership. Held, (1) that if G.’s administrators knew that D. was a member of the co-partnership, they were liable to G.’s estate for a loss occasioned by the substitution of the certificate of 1893 for that of 1890, and they were therefore interested in the result of the suit; (2) that from the nature of their transactions with the partnership and their position as trustees, it might reasonably be inferred that they were not without knowledge respecting the membership of it, and therefore incompetent to testify to their want of knowledge; (3) that it was proper to admit evidence of transfers of stock of the bank, of the introduction of new members and the part they took in the management of partnership affair's; (I) that the evidence was sufficient to submit to the ju