O'Brien v. Logan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error-from the District Court of Allegheny. This was a scire facias on a mechanic’s claim, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on points reserved. These were stated to be: — 1. There being a special contract, whether the claim filed generally, without reference to the contract, was valid, and whether the evidence supported the claim.
Read the full summary
In error-from the District Court of Allegheny. This was a scire facias on a mechanic’s claim, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on points reserved. These were stated to be: — 1. There being a special contract, whether the claim filed generally, without reference to the contract, was valid, and whether the evidence supported the claim. The court considered that the claim was untrue, for want of a statement of the contract, and that the evidence did not support the claim. 2. The claim was filed July 17,1844, and the owner had conveyed on the…
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
(after stating the case.) — The court say that the evidence does not sustain the plaintiff’s claim. The evidence is not on the paper-book; and it is therefore impossible for *98us to say whether it did support the plaintiff’s claim or not. There is room to infer that the court considered the exhibition of the contract by the plaintiff as a variance, and that the allegata, and probata did not therefore correspond. As the sufficiency of the evidence to support the claim belonged to the jury in a great measure, we presume not that its alleged insufficiency was the occasion of a judgment non…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hoatz v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Haley v. ProsserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844