Albert v. Uhrich
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 548, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lebanon Co., June T., 1895, No. 404, for defendants non obstante veredicto. Trespass to recover the value of certain fixtures. Before E. W. Biddle, P. J., of the ninth judicial district, specially presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 548, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lebanon Co., June T., 1895, No. 404, for defendants non obstante veredicto. Trespass to recover the value of certain fixtures. Before E. W. Biddle, P. J., of the ninth judicial district, specially presiding. At the trial, under the instruction of the court the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for #782, subject to the following question of law reserved: “ Did a good title to the boiler, engine and appliances mentioned in the plaintiff’s-statement pass to the purchasers of the mill property in 1893 by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
On the assumption that the plaintiff was legally entitled to recover in this case, the jury found in his favor a small percentage of his claim — all in fact that he was able to prove — subject to the opinion of the court on the following question of law reserved: “Did a good title to the boiler, engine and appliances mentioned in the plaintiff’s statement pass to the purchasers of the mill in 1893 by the sheriff’s sale and conveyance ? ” The court being of opinion that it did, afterwards entered judgment in favor of the defendants on the reserved question non obstante veredicto.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Caulk v. CaulkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1947
- Bullock Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Lehigh Valley Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Straight v. MahoneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Sorbello v. Sorbello, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1981
- Copley v. Stewart, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Armstrong County1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.