Strong, Deemer & Co. v. Dinniny
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 348, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Potter Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 242, on case tried before the court without a jury. Replevin to recover 1,300,000 feet of hemlock saw-logs. The case was tried before Olmsted, P. J., without a jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 348, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Potter Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 242, on case tried before the court without a jury. Replevin to recover 1,300,000 feet of hemlock saw-logs. The case was tried before Olmsted, P. J., without a jury. The opinion of the court was as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. I find as a fact in the case that on the 12th day of September, A. D. 1892, a contract was entered into in writing between H. A. Kent (one of the defendants), of the first part and Strong, Deemer & Co. (plaintiffs) of the second part, by the terms of which the party of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
By agreement filed, trial by jury was waived, and the case was submitted to the learned president of the common pleas. An examination of the record has failed to convince us that there is any substantial error either in his findings of fact or *594conclusions of law; and there appears to be nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires discussion. They are all dismissed, and the judgment is affirmed, on the opinion of the court below.
2Cited by16 opinions
- Jones v. Commercial Investment TrustUtah Supreme Court · 1924
- Oklahoma Moline Plow Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- McKee, Tr. v. WardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Frank Pure Food Co. v. DodsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- State v. CarterSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1901
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.