Udderzook v. Harris
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Udderzook v. Harris, 140 Pa. 236 (Pa. 1891)
21 A. 395; 1891 Pa. LEXIS 833
Clark, Green, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams
Udderzook v. Harris
Opinion of the Court
The first assignment alleges that the court erred in the following portion of its general charge: “ I do not understand that there is any attempt made on the part of the defence to contradict what has been testified to by James and his witnesses relative to the property which he owns individually.” This language is not strictly accurate, for there was an attempt made. But it was an attempt, nothing more. The title of the defendant could not be defeated by the declarations of Frank Udderzook, which is all the testimony of Edmund Hatton and Samuel G. Hatton amounts to. The second assignment does not conform to the Rules of Court, and for this reason has not been considered.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. B. UDDERZOOK v. W. S. HARRIS
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Upon the trial of a sheriff’s interpleader, declarations as to the ownership of the property in dispute made by a deceased person through whom the defendants claim, are inadmissible to affect the rights of the claimant thereto. 2. Where such declarations constitute the only evidence in favor of the execution creditor, a judgment for the plaintiff will not be reversed because the court charged the jury that there was no attempt to contradict the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses. 3. A general assignment of error in the following form: “ The charge of the court below, as a whole, was misleading to the jury,” is not in accordance with the Rules of Court, Rule XXIII., and for this reason will not be considered.