Baumgardner v. Burnham
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1879, No. 102. Assumpsit by George Burnham and others, trading as Burn-ham, Parry, Williams & Co., against Henry Baumgardner and William F. Lockhard, trading as Henry Baumgardner & Co., to recover for work done and materials furnished in the repair of a locomotive. The declaration contained the common counts only, with a copy of the book-account as a bill of particulars.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1879, No. 102. Assumpsit by George Burnham and others, trading as Burn-ham, Parry, Williams & Co., against Henry Baumgardner and William F. Lockhard, trading as Henry Baumgardner & Co., to recover for work done and materials furnished in the repair of a locomotive. The declaration contained the common counts only, with a copy of the book-account as a bill of particulars. The following facts, with those set forth in the opinion of this court, sufficiently state the case. Mr. Baumgardner sent to the plaintiffs a…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Sharswood
It is very probable that if the full charge had appeared on the bill of exceptions, this judgment would not have been reversed. It will always be wise for the learned judges of the courts below to see to it that so much of their charges at least are set out as may be necessary to explain the particular parts excepted to. We have here a single isolated sentence taken from the charge without any thing that went before or came after. It may possibly have been harmless, but as it stands, we think it was calculated to mislead the jury.
The action was on a book account for work and materials in the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Pulli v. Warren National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979