Goldfarb v. Colitz Coal Co.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County
1Opinion of the Court
Dalton, J.,
This case was tried before the writer and a jury. After considerable evidence had been offered on both sides, counsel orally agreed that “the matter, the testimony being closed, shall be submitted to the court, and that the jury be discharged from the consideration of it; and that the court shall take into consideration the whole case, law and facts and decide the matter”. In accordance with this agreement the jury was discharged and the decision of the court was reserved pending the transcription of the testimony.
The Act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109, sec. 1, 12 PS §688, provides…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Harris v. MercurSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Bertram v. PetrovskySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Hagy v. SharpSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Union Savings Bank v. FifeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882