Swavely v. Eno
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, March T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1909, No. 563, on verdict for plaintiff in case of E. Swavely v. Marion B. Eno. Assumpsit to recover tuition fee. Before Garman, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 36, March T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1909, No. 563, on verdict for plaintiff in case of E. Swavely v. Marion B. Eno. Assumpsit to recover tuition fee. Before Garman, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The trial judge charged in part as follows: [There being no contradiction of the facts alleged upon the part of the plaintiff, by the defendant, we conceive that it is our duty to say that under the law, a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant has been clearly established and that under the terms of that…
1DissentMorrison, J.
With great respect for the majority opinion I find myself compelled to dissent from the disposition of the case as raised by the second assignment of error. I fully *88concur with the majority opinion in so far as it sustains the first assignment and reverses the judgment.
Of course I recognize the doctrine of King v. Steiren, 44 Pa. 99, cited in the majority opinion. That case is cited by the late Justice Clark in Emery v. Steckel, 126 Pa. 171, and Judge Clark, Avith his usual industry and thoroughness, referred in his opinion to numerous other cases to the same effect. However, all of these…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Emery v. SteckelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- King & Graham v. SteirenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Imperial Coal Co. v. Port Royal Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Dock v. PrattSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Emig v. SpatzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.