Dallas v. Columbia Iron & Steel Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 193, Oct. T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of G. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 463, on verdict for plaintiffs, Charles K. Dallas et al. Assumpsit for services. Before Ewing, P. J. The facts appear by the charge of the court which was as follows: “ It seems that in 1891, the Columbia Iron & Steel Company had become unable to continue its business, had made an assignment, and then there was a receiver appointed by the United States court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 193, Oct. T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of G. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 463, on verdict for plaintiffs, Charles K. Dallas et al. Assumpsit for services. Before Ewing, P. J. The facts appear by the charge of the court which was as follows: “ It seems that in 1891, the Columbia Iron & Steel Company had become unable to continue its business, had made an assignment, and then there was a receiver appointed by the United States court. It had a very large number of creditors, and an indebtedness running over half a million dollars, of which $420,000 was…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cttbiam,
An examination of this record, with special reference to the several specifications, has satisfied us that there is no error, either in the charge of the learned president of the common pleas or in his answers to defendant’s first and second points for charge, that requires a reversal of the judgment. The testimony tending to sustain plaintiff’s claim for compensation, etc., was rightly submitted to the jury with proper instructions.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Moede v. HainesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896