Cover v. Hoffman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 3, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Somerset Co., Feb. T., 1897, No. 178, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of J. M. Cover to use of B. S. Fleck v. Sarah J. Hoffman, Administratrix of Jacob Hoffman, deceased. Issue to determine the amount due on a confessed judgment. • Before Kooser, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The rules relating to the reservation of questions of law at the trial have been so fully considered in the recent cases of Fisher v. Scbaradin, 186 Pa. 565, and Casey v. Paving Co., 198 *215Pa. 348, that a discussion of them is needless. They are: 1. The question reserved must be one of law purely, unmixed with any question of fact. 2. It must be one that rules the case so completely that its decision will warrant a binding instruction. 3. The question must be clearly stated and the facts upon which it arises must be admitted on the record or found by the jury. A…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fisher v. ScharadinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Casey v. Pennsylvania Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
3Cited by3 opinions
- Orner v. McCauleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Shure v. Shure, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Fayette County1938
- Snyder v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912