Lane v. Nelson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 39, Jan. T., 1895, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., May T., 1892, No. 110, in favor of plaintiff on trial by court without a jury. Assumpsit for rent, tried by Rice, P. J., without a jury. Rice, P. J., filed the following opinion: “ This action was brought to recover a balance of rent alleged to be due under a certain lease hereafter referred to. The case was tried by the court without a jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 39, Jan. T., 1895, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., May T., 1892, No. 110, in favor of plaintiff on trial by court without a jury. Assumpsit for rent, tried by Rice, P. J., without a jury. Rice, P. J., filed the following opinion: “ This action was brought to recover a balance of rent alleged to be due under a certain lease hereafter referred to. The case was tried by the court without a jury. The following are our findings of fact and conclusions of law: “ I. The terms and covenants of the lease in question, so far as they are material here, are as follows: ‘…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
The facts being agreed upon, the questions arising thereon were submitted to the court, and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. The record discloses no error. Little, if anything, can be added to what has been so well said by the learned president of the common pleas. On his clear and concise opinion we affirm the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by22 opinions
- Higgins v. StreetSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1907
- Shalet v. KlauderCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1929
- Lipper v. Bouvé, Crawford & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Armstrong v. Standard Ice Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Riggs v. New CastleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.