Legal Opinion

Frisbie v. McFarlane

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 21, 1900No. 2; Appeal, No. 76PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal, No. 76, Jan. T., 1900, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Bradford Co., Dec. T., 1898, No. 331, discharging rule to strike off verdict and judgment in case of Hiram Frisbie and Horace Kipp, trading as Hiram Frisbie & Co. v. James McFarlane, J. Thorne, Samuel Thorne, trading as James McFarlane & Co. Rule to strike off verdict and judgment. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was the order of the court discharging the rule.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mitchell,

The irregularity of this judgment is somewhat startling. Hiram ’ Frisbie and Horace Kipp trading as Hiram Frisbie & Co. brought suit against the defendants, and four trials were had with results varying from a verdict for plaintiffs for $1,000 to a verdict and certificate in favor of defendants for $9,800. During the progress of the case the defendants obtained a rule to add the names of G. W. Kipp and E. F. Kizer as plaintiffs. This rule after hearing was properly discharged, but after the verdict and certificate for defendants at the last trial, the names of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

Armstrong v. City of LancasterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
Chambers v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838

3Cited by3 opinions

McFarlane v. KippSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
Coleman v. Gilpin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1940
Hammock v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925