Wentzel v. Morris
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 279, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Feb. T., 1910, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Calvin F. Wentzel v. Sigmund Morris and Edwin Youse. Assumpsit for work done and performed. Before Wagner, J. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff, a carpenter, was employed by the defendants to rebuild an amusement device known as a “Teaser.” The defendants claimed that the work had not been properly done.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 279, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Feb. T., 1910, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Calvin F. Wentzel v. Sigmund Morris and Edwin Youse. Assumpsit for work done and performed. Before Wagner, J. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff, a carpenter, was employed by the defendants to rebuild an amusement device known as a “Teaser.” The defendants claimed that the work had not been properly done. There was evidence, however, that the defendants had expressed satisfaction with the work after it was finished and had accepted the same. •'…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The first assignment of error does not comply with rule 16 of this court in that it does not contain the offer of proof nor the ruling of the court thereon. It must therefore be disregarded: Gish v. Brown, 171 Pa. 479; Deroy v. Richards, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 119. The ninth, tenth and eleventh assignments are to portions of the opinion of the court on the motion for a new trial. These are not subjects of assignments of error. The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh assignments are to the answers of the court to points presented by the plaintiff and defendants.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gish v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- DeRoy v. RichardsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898