Lea v. Jones
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 20, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. on verdict for defendant in case of Henry C. Lea v. Mary H. Jones. Assumpsit for cost of moiety of a party wall. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant. On a motion for a new trial the court filed the following opinion: We shall assume that the wall in question between 1217 and 1219 Market street is a party wall.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 20, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. on verdict for defendant in case of Henry C. Lea v. Mary H. Jones. Assumpsit for cost of moiety of a party wall. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant. On a motion for a new trial the court filed the following opinion: We shall assume that the wall in question between 1217 and 1219 Market street is a party wall. Lea, the plaintiff, owned 1219 and 1221 Market street. Mrs. Jones, one of the defendants, owned 1217 Market street. In 1901 Mrs.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
As tbe charge was a bare instruction to the jury, “ as matter of law, to find a verdict for the defendant,” and neither party presented any points, there is no record of the ground on which the verdict was directed, nor, beyond the pleading, any record of the ground on which recovery was sought, or on which defense was made. From the opinion of the trial judge on a motion for new trial, it appears that the defendant, in constructing a building in 1901, used the party wall previously erected by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff’s right of action was contested on the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Voight v. WallaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897