Green v. Smith
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 79, Oct. T., 1914, by defendants, from judgment.of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 4,180, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of James I. Green et al., trading as Matthew Addy & Company, v. G. Edward Smith and William H. Hansell, Copartners, trading as Smith & Hansell. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Brégy, P. J. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $226.17. Defendants appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 79, Oct. T., 1914, by defendants, from judgment.of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 4,180, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of James I. Green et al., trading as Matthew Addy & Company, v. G. Edward Smith and William H. Hansell, Copartners, trading as Smith & Hansell. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Brégy, P. J. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $226.17. Defendants appealed. Errors assigned were in the following form: 1. - The learned trial judge erred in sustaining the objection of the plaintiffs to the following question, asked of the defendant,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The charge of the learned trial judge was so clear and satisfactory that appellant’s counsel withdrew his prayers for special instructions and we have no assignment relating to the manner in which the case was finally submitted.
The first, second, fifth and sixth assignments may be disposed of together. Each complains of the action of the court in sustaining an objection to a single detached question put to the defendant by his counsel. The relevancy of the answers sought to be elicited in no way appears from the questions themselves. Manifestly in such cases counsel should…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pizzi v. NardelloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Feingold v. KatzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Belber Trunk & Bag Co. v. SilberblattSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910