Diehl v. Ellis
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 8, March T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Montour Co., June T., 1914, No. 16, on verdict for defendant in case of Margaret S. Diehl v. William Ellis. Replevin for a mare. Before Evans, P. J. Plaintiff claimed the mare under the will of her father, John A. Ellis. Defendant claimed that John A. Ellis had given the mare to him.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 8, March T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Montour Co., June T., 1914, No. 16, on verdict for defendant in case of Margaret S. Diehl v. William Ellis. Replevin for a mare. Before Evans, P. J. Plaintiff claimed the mare under the will of her father, John A. Ellis. Defendant claimed that John A. Ellis had given the mare to him. The court charged in part as follows: “If you find with respect to the defendant’s first contention, viz: That John A. Ellis had actually given the máre to him, William, during his lifetime, and that he, William, took the mare into his possession…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Portee, J.,
The opening sentences of the argument contained in the brief of the appellant frankly state the real question involved in the single assignment of error in this case. “The court was eminently fair in the trial of the case and in the charge given to the jury. The error complained of' was a mistake by the court and the confusing of the testimony of, one witness for the defendant with that of one for the plaintiff.” We have examined the record and testimony in this case and are convinced that the error of the charge of the court in referring to the testimony was entirely…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RazmusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Donora Southern RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Brown v. Sunbury & Selinsgrove Electric Street Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Livingston v. ReichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913