Sommer v. Huber
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 145, Jan. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1894, No. 10, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on contract for salary.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 145, Jan. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1894, No. 10, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on contract for salary. Before Brubaker, J. The defendants, being about to engage in the business of manufacturing candy in the city of Lancaster, entered into a contract on September 8,1888, with the plaintiff, to superintend the confectionery manufacturing department of their factory for two years, from August 20, 1888, at a salary of $100 per month. It appeared upon the trial that he was also to suggest to them the necessary machinery, superintend…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
The general and well-settled rule is that instructions to the jury must be given in open court where they may be heard by the parties and their’counsel. It is said in 11 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, page 257, that there must be no private communication between the -judge and the jury, and it was held in the cases cited on pp. 257 and 258 of the same volume that “ he must not go to the room where they are deliberating even for the purpose of giving additional instructions, or to answer certain questions, or, in the absence of counsel, at the request of the jury to…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BradleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Commonwealth v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Yarsunas v. BorosSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Kersey Manufacturing Co. v. RozicSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Argo v. GoodsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.