Petri v. Carracciolo
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 51, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Jan. T., 1905, No. 554, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Petro Petri v. Dominick Carracciolo. Motion to quash appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 51, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Jan. T., 1905, No. 554, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Petro Petri v. Dominick Carracciolo. Motion to quash appeal. The fourth reason assigned in support of the motion was as follows: 4. Because there was no exception in the court below to rulings on the points presented by plaintiff or to the charge, and no request by the counsel for appellant to the court, before verdict for an order directing the charge to be made a matter of record for purposes of enabling them to except thereto. 1. There must be an…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice P. J.,
The single matter, which the appellant who was defendant below assigns for error, is the court’s answer to a certain point or request for instructions presented by the plaintiff. The docket entries do not show that any point in writing was presented to the judge before he charged the jury, and no such point is among the files sent up with the record. But it appears from the report of the charge, which was approved by the judge and filed by his direction, that the plaintiff “ submitted two points or requests for specific instructions,” and that in answer to the second the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Smith v. Times Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Curtis v. WinstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Sibley v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Heyer v. Cunningham Piano Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. JohnstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910