Grossman v. Thunder
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 248, Jau. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Lancaster Co., Jan. T., 1902, No. 6, on verdict for defendant in case of Anna Grossman v. Mary Forney Thunder, executrix of Susan C. Forney, deceased. Assumpsit for services.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 248, Jau. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Lancaster Co., Jan. T., 1902, No. 6, on verdict for defendant in case of Anna Grossman v. Mary Forney Thunder, executrix of Susan C. Forney, deceased. Assumpsit for services. Before Hassler, J. The court charged as follows: The action is one to recover for services on an express contract, as well as on a quantum meruit, which services were rendered to Susan C. Forney by the plaintiff up to and prior to November 12, 1901. On that day the plaintiff signed a receipt which reads as follows: “November 12, 1901. “ Í, Annie…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
We have carefully examined and considered the testimony in this case, the charge of the learned court below, the opinion refusing a new trial, and the very excellent argument of counsel for appellant as well as appellee, but do not discover any reversible error in instructing the jury to find a verdict in favor of the defendant. This belongs to a class of cases in which the courts have frequently said every intendment should be most strongly taken against the validity of the claim. The learned trial judge, in discussing the question whether a contract had been…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Roberts EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Fahringer v. Strine EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Leahy v. CheneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
- Wise v. MartinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Lewis's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.