Sharer v. Dobbins
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 389, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pkila. Co., March T., 1895, No. 1107, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit upon a contract. Before Arnold, P. J. The court charged as follows: The plaintiff claims the balance due him for a certain brick drying machine. There does not appear to be any dispute as to any of the items except as to certain things called pallets, or iron shelves, upon which the bricks were put to be dried.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 389, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pkila. Co., March T., 1895, No. 1107, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit upon a contract. Before Arnold, P. J. The court charged as follows: The plaintiff claims the balance due him for a certain brick drying machine. There does not appear to be any dispute as to any of the items except as to certain things called pallets, or iron shelves, upon which the bricks were put to be dried. The statement of the claim, and the plaintiff himself in his testimony admitted he was to furnish steel pallets, and he swears that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The assignments of error are based on an excerpt from the charge, and on the answers to the defendant’s first and third points. The excerpt must be considered in connection with other parts of the charge relating to the claims of the parties and the evidence applicable to thexn. So considered we regard the excerpt as unobjectionable. The answers to the defendant’s points are in harmony with the charge^ and we cannot find in either o£ them any cause for reversing the judgment. The assignments are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- White v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910