Legal Opinion
Hultz v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided January 12, 1857PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Error to tbe District Court of Alleghany County. Debt on an official bond in which plaintiffs in error yrere defendants below.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered
by Lewis, C. J.
There were seven specifications of error, but not one of them is in accordance with the rule of court.
“ When the error assigned is to the admission or rejection of evidence, the specification must quote the full substance of the bill of exceptions, or copy the bill in immediate connection with the specification.” Eule VIII., 6 Har. 578.
“ When the error assigned is to the charge of the court, the part of the charge referred to must be quoted totidem verbis in the specification.” Eule VIII., 6 H. 578.
The judgment must, therefore, 'be affirmed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Violett v. PattonSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- Bank of the Commonwealth v. CurryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1834
3Cited by3 opinions
- Philadelphia v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- Commonwealth v. Gutelius (No. 1)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Lehigh Crane Iron Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867