Volume 301 — Pennsylvania State Reports

<p>The effect of the renewals and payments and additions to collateral made by defendant over a period of years is not a matter of estoppel prejudicing plaintiff bank, but is a matter of waiving his defense by such conduct.</p>

<p>The proponents’ evidence as to signature was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and justify the verdict that it was genuine.</p> <p>Where there is a substantial dispute on the facts testified to by eminently credible witnesses, the trial judge is not warranted in disturbing the verdict: Rowand v. Finney, 96 Pa. 192; Tetlow’s Est., 269 Pa. 486; Com. Trust Co. v. DuBruille, 243 Pa. 292; Sharpless’s Est., 134 Pa. 250; Butts v. Armour, 164 Pa. 73; Kustus v. Hager, 269 Pa. 103.</p> <p>Standards of handwriting are admissible in evidence for purposes of comparison only in corroboration of other testimony: Travis v. Brown, 43 Pa. 9.</p>

The removals were proper: Summit Hill Dist. Case, 258 Pa. 575; Dunmore School Directors’ Removal, 3 Pa. D. & C. 58; Wilkes-Barre Twp. S. Directors, 5 Pa. D. & C. 244; Coal Twp. S. Directors, 290 Pa. 200.

There was no testimony that any signal was given except three sharp toots of the whistle just at the time of the accident. The whistle post for the crossing at which the accident occurred was not more than one hundred twenty-five feet from it, and even if the whistle had been sounded at this point, it could not have been adequate warning of the approach of the train: Sharpless v. R. R., 286 Pa. 439, 444; Knepp v. R. R., 262 Pa. 421.