Waters v. Burgess
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, No. 207, July T., 1887, to C. P. Warren Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for plaintiffs in an action of assumpsit by Seneca Burgess and Maria O. Burgess his wife, in right of Maria O. Burgess, against Myron Waters, at June T., 1882, No. 48. Trunkey, J., absent. May 8, 1882, summons issued.
Read the full summary
Error, No. 207, July T., 1887, to C. P. Warren Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for plaintiffs in an action of assumpsit by Seneca Burgess and Maria O. Burgess his wife, in right of Maria O. Burgess, against Myron Waters, at June T., 1882, No. 48. Trunkey, J., absent. May 8, 1882, summons issued. The declaration contained the common counts, and afterwards, by amendment, a special count, not given, but which is recited as claiming, in substance, that Mrs. Burgess borrowed $1,000 of the defendant by mortgage, and left $500 of the amount with him to pay a judgment, called the Daggett or…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
After a careful examination of this case, we are forced to the conclusion that it was one principally of fact, and was properly submitted to the jury. There can be no doubt but that, admitting the rectitude of the testimony presented on part of plaintiffs, the conclusion reached was not only legal but just. It is true, the proofs adduced by the defendant ought, if believed, to have produced a very different result. The credibility of the witnesses was, however, for the jury, and that those of the plaintiffs were believed rather than those of the defendant was no fault of the court,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Succession of CoxSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880