Gray v. Trent
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, No. 128, Oct. T. 1888, to C. P. No. 2 Allegheny Co., to review a, judgment on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an action of trespass vi et armis de bonis asportatis, by Charles H. Trent against Joseph H. Gray, Sheriff of Allegheny Co., at April T. 1889, No 468. The facts of the case are stated below, in the charge of the court, by Ewing, J. At the trial, C.' H. Trent, plaintiff below, being upon the stand as a witness on his own behalf, and having testified in…
Read the full summary
Error, No. 128, Oct. T. 1888, to C. P. No. 2 Allegheny Co., to review a, judgment on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an action of trespass vi et armis de bonis asportatis, by Charles H. Trent against Joseph H. Gray, Sheriff of Allegheny Co., at April T. 1889, No 468. The facts of the case are stated below, in the charge of the court, by Ewing, J. At the trial, C.' H. Trent, plaintiff below, being upon the stand as a witness on his own behalf, and having testified in chief, under objection, that he had a contract for the delivery of cigars, and was prevented from making the delivery by…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The case before us, as developed in the court below, was one principally of fact, and was clearly and carefully submitted, by the learned judge who presided at the trial, to the jury, and an examination of the several assignments of error reveals to us nothing that can be regarded as erroneous.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Duffy v. McHenry Horse ExchangeLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1914
- Laughlin v. SontheimerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1903