Fahrig v. Schimpff
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 64, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1897, No. 180, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Matilda Fahrig, Administratrix of Frank E. Fahrig, Deceased, v. Eugene Schimpff. Assumpsit to recover the amount of a bid at an administrator’s sale.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 64, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1897, No. 180, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Matilda Fahrig, Administratrix of Frank E. Fahrig, Deceased, v. Eugene Schimpff. Assumpsit to recover the amount of a bid at an administrator’s sale. Before Archbald, P. J. At the trial the defendant set up as a defense that he had purchased at the sale at the solicitation of the administratrix personally, and that he was only to be accountable to her for what he realized upon a resale of the property. The court under objection and exception refused…
1Opinion of the Court
Peb Cttbiam,
This was an action of assumpsit in which the plaintiff recovered a verdict of $2,094.40 against the defendant. The verdict was warranted by the testimony in the case and the charge of the court was plain and impartial. There does not appear to be any ground for a new trial or a reversal. The opinion refusing a rule for a new trial contains a citation of the cases applicable to the issue and they seem to support the judgment founded upon the verdict. We therefore dismiss the specifications of error and affirm the judgment on the clear and satisfactory opinion of the learned…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dull v. SlaterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Snyder v. McLanahanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Jack's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Lancaster County · 1947