Inquirer Printing & Publishing Co. v. Rice
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: Of January Term, 1884, No. 132. Assumpsit, by the Inquirer Printing and Publishing Company against Rev. H. S. Rice, D. Rhine Plertz, O. S. Rice, A. W. Zugg and H. E. Hermes. Pleas, non-assumpsit, payment with leave, &c.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: Of January Term, 1884, No. 132. Assumpsit, by the Inquirer Printing and Publishing Company against Rev. H. S. Rice, D. Rhine Plertz, O. S. Rice, A. W. Zugg and H. E. Hermes. Pleas, non-assumpsit, payment with leave, &c. On the trial, before Patterson, J., August 30, 1883, the court, without reserving a question of law, directed the jury to render a verdict for the plaintiff for $195.71. The same day a rule was granted, on motion of defendants’ counsel, to show cause why judgment should not be rendered in favor of the defendants, non…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sterrett
The prerequisites of a valid judgment non obstante veredicto have been so frequently stated that repetition is unnecessary. . In the first place, the reservation of a controlling question of law is indispensable, and that, being the act of the court, should always be made a matter of record at the time. It was •accordingly said in Irwin v. Wickersham, 1 Casey, 316 : “If a point of law be reserved on the trial of a cause, the point and *625the facts upon which it arises must be stated on the record in order to authorize the court to enter judgment non obstante veredicto.” Again, “ Every…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Casey v. Pennsylvania Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Koons v. McNameeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- McCord v. Baltimore & O. R.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
- Johnston v. United Presbyterian Board of PublicationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- McCallin v. HerzerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.