Donnelly v. Hoopes
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 59, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 2,906, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Michael F. Donnelly v. Bernard Hoopes. Assumpsit for money had and received. Before Ralston, J. In addition to the facts stated in the opinion of the Superior Court the following correspondence was produced in evidence* “Philadelphia, Juné 24th, 1910. “ M. F. Donnelly, Esq., “ 414 Crozer Bldg., “ 1420 Chestnut St., Phila.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 59, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 2,906, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Michael F. Donnelly v. Bernard Hoopes. Assumpsit for money had and received. Before Ralston, J. In addition to the facts stated in the opinion of the Superior Court the following correspondence was produced in evidence* “Philadelphia, Juné 24th, 1910. “ M. F. Donnelly, Esq., “ 414 Crozer Bldg., “ 1420 Chestnut St., Phila. “ Dear Sir: “Before you go away I would like to have the property 1517 and 1519 Vine St. in shape to either lease, sell or improve.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The single contention of the defendant in this case is that the learned trial judge fell into error in refusing to direct a verdict in his favor. A brief consideration of the undisputed facts, viewing them in the light most favorable to the defendant that the circumstances will permit, will clearly show that the learned judge below could not have properly withheld from the jury the determination of at least one controlling question of fact.
It is conceded that the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff whereby he undertook to sell and convey to the latter…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. MikulaMontgomery County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1922