Titman's Administrator v. Titman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Piles county: No. 394, to January Term 1868. This was an action of assumpsit, brought May 26th 1866, by Lenah M. Titman against Jeremiah Titman, administrator, &c., of John Titman, deceased. The claim was for services rendered by the plaintiff to the decedent, who was her father, from 1848, when she was eighteen years of age, until 1866, when the decedent died. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and the Statute of Limitations.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Piles county: No. 394, to January Term 1868. This was an action of assumpsit, brought May 26th 1866, by Lenah M. Titman against Jeremiah Titman, administrator, &c., of John Titman, deceased. The claim was for services rendered by the plaintiff to the decedent, who was her father, from 1848, when she was eighteen years of age, until 1866, when the decedent died. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and the Statute of Limitations. Isaac Clifford testified, that in 1848 the decedent in his presence told the plaintiff that he would give her $ 1 a week if she…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Sharswood, J.
— It answers no good purpose to multiply points, exceptions and specifications, of error, unnecessarily. On the contrary, it tends only to embarrass the court, and increase their labors in the consideration and determination of a cause. In this case there are fifteen assignments of error, which may all, however, be disposed of by the resolution of four questions.
1. The first is, whether there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury that the relation between the plaintiff and the decedent was not that of father and daughter merely,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cutts v. FrostSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1813