Barnhart v. Barnhart
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 61, April T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Somerset Co., May T., 1899, No. 223, for defendant not obstante veredicto in case of Lincoln Barnhart’s use v. Adam Barnhart’s Administrators et al. Scire facias sur orphans’ court recognizance. At the trial defendants submitted the following point: Under all the evidence and pleadings in the case the verdict must be for the defendants. Answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 61, April T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Somerset Co., May T., 1899, No. 223, for defendant not obstante veredicto in case of Lincoln Barnhart’s use v. Adam Barnhart’s Administrators et al. Scire facias sur orphans’ court recognizance. At the trial defendants submitted the following point: Under all the evidence and pleadings in the case the verdict must be for the defendants. Answer. That proposition is one of law purely, arising upon the whole case, and we reserve it for further determination. Verdict for plaintiff for $403.68. On a motion for judgment non…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Oklady, J.,
The court below was requested by the defendants to say to the jury, that under all the evidence and pleadings in the case, the verdict must be for them, which was refused for the reason that the proposition was strictly one of law, arising on the whole case. The genuineness of a receipt and certain other controverted facts were submitted to the jury and a verdict was returned in the plaintiff’s favor. On motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, the testimony was reviewed by the trial judge and held to he too vague, indefinite, and uncertain to warrant the submission of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Witman v. SmeltzerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Mayne v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Supplee v. HerrmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Baltzell v. CookSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901