Holt v. Kelley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 298 and 299, Jan. T., 1908, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1907, Nos. 244 and 245, on verdict for plaintiffs in cases of Mary Holt et al. v. M. D. Kelley et al. and Fannie Loraine et al. v. M. D. Kelley et al. Assumpsit to recover rentals alleged to be due under a coa 1 lease.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 298 and 299, Jan. T., 1908, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1907, Nos. 244 and 245, on verdict for plaintiffs in cases of Mary Holt et al. v. M. D. Kelley et al. and Fannie Loraine et al. v. M. D. Kelley et al. Assumpsit to recover rentals alleged to be due under a coa 1 lease. Reed, P. J., specially presiding, charged as follows: By consent of the parties you have been sworn in these two cases which are being tried together before you, but you will bear in mind that you are required to render separate verdicts, that is, a verdict in each case in…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
These appeals involve the same questions and were argued together. The facts that gave rise to them, the contentions of the parties, and the grounds on which they were submitted to the jury are clearly set out in the charge of Judge Reed, specially presiding. We find no error of which the appellants can justly complain, and the judgments are affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Muncey Coal Mining Co. v. MunceyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1925
- Daniels v. Lehigh Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Oliver v. PolsonWashington Supreme Court · 1921