Glenn v. Strickland
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 163, April T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 163, on verdict for defendant, in case of H. S. Glenn v. C. D. Strickland. Assumpsit on a contract for drilling an oil well. The terms of the contract are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 163, April T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 163, on verdict for defendant, in case of H. S. Glenn v. C. D. Strickland. Assumpsit on a contract for drilling an oil well. The terms of the contract are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court admitted under exception and objection, testimony of an expert as to what was understood among drillers by a carpenter’s rig. [6] The court charged in part as follows : The contract requires that Glenn shall furnish an outfit of drilling tools and lines. Does that include fishing…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
We do not quash this appeal, not because there is not good ground for it, for we think there is. There was no request appearing of record that the charge be reduced to writing from the stenographer’s notes and filed of record (Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492; Patterson v. Groetzinger, 10 Pa. Superior Ct. 327), nor does it affirmatively appear of record, as it should, by a certificate of the trial judge, that the record made up by the stenographer, including evidence and charge, is true and filed of record by his direction: Yoast v. Beatty, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 219.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Curtis v. WinstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Yoast v. BeattySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Patterson v. GroetzingerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Spatz v. NasconeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981