Hays v. City of Oil City
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe Common Pleas of Venango County to review a judgment in favor of defendant in an action to recover for services rendered.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Common Pleas of Venango County to review a judgment in favor of defendant in an action to recover for services rendered. The facts of the case as they appeared at the trial, and the course of procedure adopted, together with the questions presented, appear from the following opinion of the court below,. Taylojb, P. J., on the reserved questions of law: “This is an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff,, claiming to recover the value of certain services rendered to the defendant. “E. W. Hays, Esq., was the regularly constituted solicitor for the city. A short time prior to…
1Per curiam
We cannot sustain the exception to the reserved points in this ease, since they were reserved on the whole evidence. A finding of facts by the jury would have been to no purpose, as they could not find contrary to the evidence; and a finding in accordance with it would have been a mere restatement of the testimony.
As to the remaining exception we have only to say that the learned and able opinion of the president judge so clearly and fully justifies his judgment as to leave us nothing to do but to concur in it.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Lawson v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Snyder v. NaefCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Dudrick v. City of Nanticoke, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County1969
- Warminster Township Appeal, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1971