McElroy v. Harnack
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 104, Oct. T., 1905, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1904, No. 205, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of T. C. McElroy et al., trading as McElroy & Boyle, v. Albert J. Harnack et al. Trespass for conspiracy. Before McClung, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 104, Oct. T., 1905, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1904, No. 205, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of T. C. McElroy et al., trading as McElroy & Boyle, v. Albert J. Harnack et al. Trespass for conspiracy. Before McClung, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Defendants presented the following points : 5. That there is no evidence in the case sufficient to sustain the allegations of the plaintiffs that the four defendants in this case conspired together to give a fictitious value to the bonds of the United States…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestbezat,
In a charge exceptionally clear as well as comprehensive and to which no error is assigned, the learned judge submitted this case to the jury and they found a verdict against all four of the defendants. Two of the defendants, Harnack and Gartner, have appealed, and they assign as error the answer.of the court to certain of their points for instruction. The questions raised by the assignments were anticipated and correctly answered in the charge and need no extended discussion here. The verdict is supported by an abundance of evidence, none of which is claimed…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Fidelity Trust Co. v. Union National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Ballantine v. CummingsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Kaiser v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Savings Deposit Bank v. ReynierSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Goess v. Lucinda Shops, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937