Yost v. Mensch

Citations

• 141 Pa. 73
• 21 A. 507
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1042

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. To open a judgment by confession, upon the ground of fraud in procuring the instrument, when the answer to the rule is signed by the plaintiffs’ attorney and not sworn to, is in general terms not denying the specific allegations of fraud, and no testimony denying the same is presented, it is not requisite that the charges of fraud be sustained by more than one witness.</p> <p>2. Whether, under the rule that, to overcome the effect of a written instrument, a chai’ge of fraud must be sustained by the testimony of two witnesses, or by that of one witness with corroborative circumstances, the testimony of husband and wife, one of them being a party, is to be treated as that of but one witness, not decided: Sower v. Weaver, 78 Pa. 448; Bitner v. Boone, 128 Pa. 567, remarked upon.</p> <p>8. The plaintiff testified that he had written and mailed a letter to the defendant and had received a reply purporting to be written by the defendant’s son on his behalf, which had been lost: proof of the contents of the lost letter was properly rejected, the son being present in court, and no proof being made of his authority to Write the answer, or of the receipt of the original letter by the defendant.</p>