Beatty v. Larzelere
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 205, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit for money had and received. Before Swartz, P. J. At the trial it appeared that on March 16,1889, plaintiff and defendant entered into the following agreement in writing: “ It is hereby agreed by and between James Beatty and N. H. Larzelere as follows, viz: Larzelere is to try the cases of said Beatty against the P. S. V. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 205, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit for money had and received. Before Swartz, P. J. At the trial it appeared that on March 16,1889, plaintiff and defendant entered into the following agreement in writing: “ It is hereby agreed by and between James Beatty and N. H. Larzelere as follows, viz: Larzelere is to try the cases of said Beatty against the P. S. V. II. R, (land damage cases), now pending in the court of common pleas of Montgomery county. If settlement is effected by which the jury of viewers allow,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The contest in the court below turned upon the question whether a new parol contract was made between the parties after the written contract was made, and its execution had been proceeded with to a certain stage. The learned court below fairly and correctly submitted that question to the jury with appropriate instructions, and the juiy found in favor of the defendant. There was a sufficiency of testimony to warrant the submission of the question to the jury, and to sustain their verdict. There is no legal difficulty in the way to disable the parties from making such an agreement,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Knight v. Gulf Refining CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Pompey Coal Co. v. Giombetti, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1937