Gaskill v. Crawford
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY DEFENDANTS FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ARMSTRONG COUNTY. No. 237 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 132 September Term 1885, C. P. On July 13, 1883, an action in assumpsit was brought by Joseph Gaskill and Harry Miller, trading as Gaskill & Miller, for use of Joseph Gaskill, against Eben Crawford and others, trading as E. Crawford & Co., to recover a balance due upon an account. Issue.
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY DEFENDANTS FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ARMSTRONG COUNTY. No. 237 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 132 September Term 1885, C. P. On July 13, 1883, an action in assumpsit was brought by Joseph Gaskill and Harry Miller, trading as Gaskill & Miller, for use of Joseph Gaskill, against Eben Crawford and others, trading as E. Crawford & Co., to recover a balance due upon an account. Issue. On December 15, 1886, a trial of the cause was had, when the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $292.50. On June 6, 1887, a rule for a new trial was argued, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam:
Inspection of the record shows that in 1884 an action of assumpsit was brought by appellee against appellants. The cause was tried by jury in December, 1886, and a yerdict for $292.20 rendered in fayor of the plaintiffs. Judgment on the yerdict was regularly entered June 7, 1887. On the 27th. of September following, appellants, who were defendants below, obtained a rule to show cause “ why the judgment should not be opened, yerdict set aside,” etc. The action of the court below in discharging that rule is the only subject of complaint on this appeal.
It is unnecessary to enter upon…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lamb's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879