Stockwell v. Loecher
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 70, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March. T., 1898, No.' 425, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 70, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March. T., 1898, No.' 425, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit. Before Audehreid, J. It appears from the record and evidence that one G. C. Seidel as agent for Andrew J. Loecher made an agreement in writing for the sale of certain premises for the price or sum of $7,850, on which amount $100 was paid at the time of'the signing of the agreement, one condition of which was that the settlement was to be made within thirty days from the date thereof. After some delay Seidel notified A. E. Stoekwell as attorney…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter,
The first three specifications of error relate to the admissibility of the following offer of evidence, “ the plaintiff’s counsel offers in evidence the record of this case and calls particular attention to the affidavit of defense for the purpose of showing the authority of Mr. Seidel.” It will be observed that the purpose of the offer was to get the affidavit of defense before the jury. This might have been done by the offer of the affidavit alone, under the authority of Bowen v. De Lattre, 6 Wharton, 430. Objection, however, to the offer was not because of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bowen v. De LattreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
3Cited by4 opinions
- Crosby v. HammerlingU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1909
- Sunday v. DietrichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Cambria Car & Foundry Co. v. Royal Quemahoning Coal Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County1924
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hickson, S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017