Bridgeford v. Groh

Stern, P. J.,(1) The defendants’ motions for new trial and for judgment n. o. v.

These motions may be considered together. They are based upon two contentions of defendants. The first of such contentions is that the court erred in not admitting in evidence testimony to the effect that at the settlement at which the property was purchased by John J. Bridgeford from Mary McCIue Douglass, the purchaser deposited $80.36 in excess of the amount required to complete the settlement, and that the title company where the settlement was conducted paid this amount by a check to the order of Helen C.…