Case ID: sadler_7/html/0613-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Otto Kramer, Plff. in Err., v. Samuel W. Read.
    Where the defendant’s testimony has been so vague that the trial judge has not been able to understand it, there was no error in refusing to affirm a point predicated upon facts alleged to have been stated in such testimony.
    (Argued January 17, 1888.
    Decided February 6, 1888.)
    July Term, 1887,
    No. 124,
    E. D., before GORDON, Oh. J., PaxsoN, Steeeett, GbeeN, CeaiíK, and Williams, JJ.
    Error to the Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County to review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action of assumpsit.
    Affirmed.
    This action was brought by Samuel W. Dead against Otto Kramer, to recover the balance of purchase money of a house.
    The facts as they appeared at the trial before Tele, J., were as follows:
    Charles Weiler held a note of Vanuxem, Wharton & Company, for $500 given him for wages. Kramer discounted this note for Weiler and subsequently "V anuxem, Wharton & Company failed. Kramer then applied to Weiler to secure bim and Weiler agreed to sell to bim a bouse over wbicb be bad control. Tbis bouse was in tbe name of Samuel W. Read, wbo was trustee for Weiler’s wife. Tbe purchase money agreed upon was $7,500. It was agreed tbat there was to be an allowance for repairs of $70 according to tbe plaintiff’s statement, but of $157 according to the defendant At the coveyancer’s office a statement was made out between Read and Kramer, the last item of wbicb was: “Balance due Read $935.37of this balance $300 was subsequently paid, and for tbe remainder tbis suit was brought. Kramer succeeded in collecting tbe full amount of tbe note. Tbe defendant claimed tbat bis agreement with Weiler was tbat thie note should be retained by himself; and if be succeeded in collecting it, be should not have to account to Weiler or Read for tbe proceeds. Tbe defendant’s whole testimony as given in tbe paper book was as follows:
    “Weiler said, “Go to an architect and make an estimate,’ and tbis was $157 and over. ‘You buy tbe bouse for $7,500, you keep tbe note.’ Tbe $500 wbicb Weiler owed me was to make up part of tbe $935, and then I was to have the'note.”
    Tbe defendant presented tbis point:
    “If tbe jury believe tbe defendant’s story, viz., tbat tbe plaintiff agreed to pay tbe costs of tbe repairs, and tbat tbe cost was $157, and tbe defendant was to have the Vanuxem note as part of tbe consideration to bim in tbe transaction, their verdict should be for tbe defendant.”
    Aiis. Refused.
    Tbe court in tbe charge said, in speaking of defendant’s testimony : “I cannot say tbat I understand it at all.”
    Tbe verdict and judgment were for plaintiff, for $515.57. .•
    Tbe assignment of error specified tbe refusal of defendant’s point as above.,
    
      Leoni Meliclc, for plaintiff in error.
    If a point be submitted, based upon a hypothesis supported by actual testimony in tbe cause, tbe party has a clear right to a definite instruction thereon. Allegheny Valley R. Co. v. Steele, 11 W. N. C. 113; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Zebe, 33 Pa. 323.
    Although tbe testimony of a witness be vague,.it cannot be withdrawn from tbe jury. Norton v. Breitenbacb, 1 Pearson (Pa.) 467.
    
      
      Edward F. Hoffman, for defendant in error.
    Where a proper answer to a point presented would be negative, the plaintiff in error cannot complain of the refusal or neglect of the court below to answer the point. Winsor v. Maddock, 64 Pa. 235.
   Pee Curiam:

The judgment in this case is affirmed.