Wood v. Schomacker Piano Forte Manufacturing Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 211, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1896, No. 357, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Walter A. Wood v. Schomacker Piano Forte Manufacturing Company. Appeal from judgment of magistrate. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for 1112.56. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 211, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1896, No. 357, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Walter A. Wood v. Schomacker Piano Forte Manufacturing Company. Appeal from judgment of magistrate. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for 1112.56. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were as follows: 1. The learned judge below erred in charging the jury as a whole as follows (quoting whole charge), because it was partial to the plaintiff below. 2. Because the learned judge below erred in his charge aforesaid as a whole in sympathizing with the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
This appeal presents questions of fact solely, and the settlement of the controversy thus raised was submitted to the proper tribunal for adjustment. In presenting it here the assignment of errors—the declaration of the appellant—neither specifies nor describes the alleged errors as required by the rules of this court.
The first error assigned is to the entire charge of the court, and complains that “ the learned judge below erred in charging the jury as follows ” (here follows the charge; and the assignment concludes with) because it was partial to the plaintiff below.”…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rosenthal v. EhrlicherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Drenning v. WesleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Zerbe v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851