Lautner v. Kann

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Lautner v. Kann, 184 Pa. 334 (Pa. 1898)
39 A. 55; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 898
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Lautner v. Kann

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb,. Justice Fell,

The action was on a book account for goods sold. The defendant attempted to establish, as a set-off to the plaintiffs’ demand, a claim for damages for the breach of a contract to furnish other goods, and at the trial the main question was whether the contract alleged by the defendant had been made. The contract set up was oral, and the only witness called to establish it failed to define its terms with clearness or accuracy. The court left it to the jury to determine whether a contract had been entered into and, if so, what were its terms. This action of the court is assigned as error, and the appellant contends that, as the credibility of the witness had not been attacked, nor his statement contradicted by other witnesses, the court should have determined whether a legal contract had been entered into. This position is not tenable. The credibility of a witness is for *339the jury, and they are not bound to accept his statements because he is unimpeached and uncontradicted by other witnesses. He may impeach and contradict himself on the witness stand, or the jury may believe that lie is honestly mistaken. His manner, the motive or bias, the inherent improbability of his story or the want of accurate recollection, may discredit his testimony and justify a jury in disregarding it altogether. The question is for the jury, and not for the court.

Different contracts were set up, a general contract to sell the whole product of the tannery of certain kinds of leather, and subsequent independent contracts based on the acceptance of specific orders. If there was a breach of these contracts, no date could be fixed by the court which could furnish a standard of price for the assessment of damages, as the breaches occurred at different dates. If there was a failure to deliver, the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of the failure. But as the jury found that no contract had been made, the plaintiff was not harmed by the instruction given, and it is useless further to consider the subject.

The judgment is affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Joseph Lautner and John G. Walther, Executors of the Estate of A. Holstein v. W. L. Kann
Cited By
15 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Evidence—Credibility of witness—Province of jury—Contract. The credibility of a witness is for the jury, who are not bound to accept the statement of the witness because he is unimpeached and uncontradicted by other witnesses. He may impeach and contradict himself on the witness stand, or the jury may believe that he is honestly mistaken. His manner, his motive, his bias, the inherent improbability of his story or the want of accurate recollection may discredit his testimony and justify a jury in disregarding it altogether. In an action on a book account for goods sold and delivered, the defendant set up a claim for damages for breach of an oral contract by the plaintiff to furnish him other goods. The only witness called to establish the contract failed to define its terms with clearness or accuracy. Eeld, that as the credibility of the witness was for the jury, it was not error to leave it to the jury to determine whether a contract had been entered into and, if so, what were its terms. Erroneous charge—Harmless error. An incorrect instruction as to the measure of damages for breach of contract was harmless error where the jury found that there was no contract.