R. Rothschild's Sons' Co. v. McLaughlin
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 99, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., June T., 1896, No. 141, on verdict for defendant. Replevin. Before Clayton, P. J. This case was before the Superior Court on appeal as reported in 6 Pa. Superior Cfc. 347, where the facts and the charge of the court are set out in full.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 99, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., June T., 1896, No. 141, on verdict for defendant. Replevin. Before Clayton, P. J. This case was before the Superior Court on appeal as reported in 6 Pa. Superior Cfc. 347, where the facts and the charge of the court are set out in full. It appears from the statement of counsel that a bill of exceptions was presented to the court within twelve days after the case was disposed of, and that the court without any objection of counsel for defendant refused to consider the bill of exceptions, and it was therefore…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, L,
None of the twenty-three assignments of error can be intelligently disposed of, without a consideration of the testimony taken in the trial in the court below; but it is not properly before us. The stenographer’s report of the testimony is not certified by the court nor authenticated in any other way. Not only is it not authenticated but it comes to us in a very unsatisfactory condition. An addition is made at the end of it on different paper, in different colored ink, which is pasted and *615attached by eyelets to what seems to have been the original transcript of the notes…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth ex rel. Arrott Steam Power Mills Co. v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Yoast v. BeattySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900