Heist v. Blaisdell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 419, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 425, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Thomas H. Heist v. Frederick E. Blaisdell. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Audenreed, J. From the record it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover the value of certain shares of stock in a corporation, which he averred that defendant had agreed to deliver to him as compensation for services.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 419, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 425, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Thomas H. Heist v. Frederick E. Blaisdell. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Audenreed, J. From the record it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover the value of certain shares of stock in a corporation, which he averred that defendant had agreed to deliver to him as compensation for services. Defendant denied the contract as alleged by plaintiff, and averred that the stock which plaintiff was to receive was to be partly in payment for…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
A careful perusal of all the testimony in the case, of the charge of the court and of the numerous specifications of error, has not disclosed adequate cause for setting aside the judgment and verdict and ordering a new trial. We therefore dismiss the twenty-five specifications of error and affirm the judgment entered by the learned court below.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Arnstein v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Rossmassler v. SpielbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Arnstein v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946