Sheinman Bros. v. Hovland-Sardeson-McColm Co.

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 479
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 144

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Evidence—Parol—Contemporaneous stipulation.</p> <p>Parol evidence is admissible to show that, at the execution of a written instrument, a stipulation was entered into, a condition annexed, or a verbal promise was made, on the faith of which the writing was executed.</p> <p>In an action based upon a written memorandum of sale, it was proper to admit evidence that, at the time the writing was made, it was understood between the parties that it was uncertain whether the defendant would have any cloth for sale, and the company could not bind itself to any obligation to deliver unless it happened to have a surplus above its own needs.</p> <p>Withdrawal of juror — Improper remarles of counsel — Reproof by the court — Discretion of court.</p> <p>Where counsel for plaintiff made a “slurring criticism” of a witness by calling him a “willing witness,” the trial judge was in the proper exercise of its duty in expressing disapprobation.</p> <p>An application for withdrawal of a juror on such ground is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court.</p> <p>Evidence — Admission or exclusion after evidence is closed — Discretion of the court.</p> <p>The admission or exclusion of additional evidence, after the testimony is closed, is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and his action will not be reversed, unless there has been a very plain abuse of discretion.</p>