Waugaman v. Henry

Citations

• 75 Pa. Super. 94
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 230

Syllabus

<p>Appeals — Motion to quash — Certification of record by court — ■ Transcript of testimony — Certificate by official stenographer.</p> <p>Where the judge who presided at the trial of a case has retired, a certificate to the record on appeal, by his successor in office is sufficient.</p> <p>The court never dies nor resigns, although its officers may; and its duties are neither Satisfied nor extinguished by a change of its functionaries. The departing judges’ unperformed duties devolve upon the successors.</p> <p>In the event of the death of the official stenographer who took the notes of testimony at the trial of the case, his successor in office who is able to translate his notes may make an official copy of the testimony, and his certificate that the transcript is a correct translation of the notes of the deceased stenographer is sufficient.</p> <p>A motion to quash an appeal, which merely complained that the transcript had not been made and certified to by the official stenographer who took the notes at the trial, and approved by the trial judge, is without merit, where there is nothing to show that any material mistake or omission had been made in the transcript of the evidence and proceedings.</p> <p>Witnesses — Surviving party to contract — Adverse testimony— Competency — Act of May %,5,1881 , P. L. 158.</p> <p>In an action to recover from a son, on certain promissory notes made by his deceased father, on the theory that the son had undertaken to pay the debts of his father, as part consideration for the sale of a farm, evidence of certain statements relative to tbe assumption of the debts, which the defendant was alleged to have made, was inadmissible, when such testimony was to the effect that the defendant had made these statements to the witness about six months prior to the conveyance of the property, and not in the presence of his father, and there was no attempt to connect it with the final negotiations between the defendant and his father, which result