Morgan-Gardner Electric Co. v. Brown
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 59, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., Nov. T., 1898, No. 57, non obstante veredicto. Issue on sheriff’s interpleader. Rule for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 59, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., Nov. T., 1898, No. 57, non obstante veredicto. Issue on sheriff’s interpleader. Rule for judgment non obstante veredicto. The facts appear by the opinion of McIlvaine, P. J., which was as follows: A single question of fact was submitted to the jury in this case, as will appear by reference to the charge of the court, and that was substantially this : “ Did the paper marked exhibit ‘ C,’ and offered in evidence, contain an agreement which had been orally entered into by the parties thereto in September, 1896,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Notwithstanding the very able argument of counsel in support of the plaintiff company’s contentions we are not convinced that there is any substantial error in the rulings of the learned president of the common pleas; and for reasons given in his opinion on the questions of law reserved, the judgment in the defendant’s favor non obstante veredicto is affirmed.
2Cited by8 opinions
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. HartmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- L. C. Smith & Bro. Typewriter Co. v. AllemanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1912
- In re TiceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Pennsylvania · 1905
- Commercial Inv. Trust Co. v. MinonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- In re PooreDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.