Dick v. Huidekoper
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, No. 283, Jan. T., 1905, and No. 2, Jan. T., 1906, by both plaintiff and defendant, from decree of C. P. Crawford Co., Nov. T., 1900, No. 1, disposing of exceptions to referee’s report in case of Samuel B. Dick v. Arthur C. Huidekoper. Exceptions to referee’s report.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
In this case we have not discovered error in connection with any question of fact or of law that was raised and passed upon below. On the material question of fact as to whether Dick advanced for Huidekoper in the nature of a loan, 3,000 shares of the capital stock of the Pittsburg, Shenango & Lake Erie Railroad Company in what is known as the Carnegie deal, there is no distinct finding, and the record is remitted with direction that the court recommit the case to the referee, that he may pass upon, subject to its review', this one question, on the evidence already taken before…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lytle, Campbell & Co. v. Somers, Fitler & Todd Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923