Volk v. Beatty
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 23, April T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Somerset Co., Feb. T., 1909, No. 23, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Justus Volk v. A. K. Beatty. Assumpsit to recover amount claimed to be due on a building contract. Before O’Connor, P. J. At the trial the plaintiff alleged as a defense that there had been a contemporaneous parol agreement that the house should be finished before cold weather, and that it had not been so finished.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 23, April T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Somerset Co., Feb. T., 1909, No. 23, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Justus Volk v. A. K. Beatty. Assumpsit to recover amount claimed to be due on a building contract. Before O’Connor, P. J. At the trial the plaintiff alleged as a defense that there had been a contemporaneous parol agreement that the house should be finished before cold weather, and that it had not been so finished. The defendant presented this point: 1. That if the jury shall find from the evidence that the plaintiff had contracted to finish the house…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
As shown by the first assignment of error, the learned trial judge gave two reasons for refusing to affirm the defendant’s third point: first, because he had fully covered the point in his general charge; second, because the point assumed certain facts which were for the jury. The rule is that a party is entitled to a clear and distinct statement of the law in answer to every point properly drawn that is material and applicable to the .case, and warranted by the facts and'the evidence, “if not fully covered in the general charge:” Schomacker Mfg. Co. v. Yankee Club, 30…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schomacker Piano Forte Manufacturing Co. v. Yankee Dauntless ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906