Cake v. Cake
Cake v. Cake
Opinion of the Court
This appeal is from the decree discharging the rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and the defendant let in to a defence. Our examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that there is nothing in either of the specifications of error that would justify a reversal. The learned president of the common pleas rightly held that Minnie E. Cake, the payee in the note and original plaintiff in the judgment, being dead, the defendant Joseph W. Cake is not a competent witness, and without his testimony there is not sufficient evidence to justify the court in making the rule to show cause etc. absolute. There is nothing in the case that requires discussion.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. Adam Cake, Exr. v. Jos. W. Cake
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Evidence — Competency of witness — Act of June 11, 1891. Where a plaintiff in a judgment is dead, and her title to the judgment has passed to her husband, the defendant is incompetent to testify in a proceeding to open a judgment as to matters occurring during the lifetime of the plaintiff. Under the act of June 11, 1891, P. L. 287, the living witness whose testimony is to make competent the surviving or remaining party to the record must be called in the interest of, and by the party representing the right of the deceased. The calling of such a witness by the adversary was not within the contemplation of the act.