Mitchell v. Jodon
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 72, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 568, on verdict for plaintiff in case of John Mitchell and William J. S. Mitchell, trading as John Mitchell & Son, v. Sarah J. Jodon. Assumpsit upon a contract for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 72, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 568, on verdict for plaintiff in case of John Mitchell and William J. S. Mitchell, trading as John Mitchell & Son, v. Sarah J. Jodon. Assumpsit upon a contract for goods sold and delivered. Before McMichael, J. At the trial it appeared that John Mitchell had a written contract with defendant to build a house.- During the progress of the building, defendant’s husband ordered certain independent and additional work to be done. Defendant made no objection to this, and subsequently promised…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
Our Rule No. 15 is founded upon reason, and the observance of it in assigning errors is essential to a proper understanding of the questions to be brought before us. The rule is : “ When the error assigned is to the charge of the court or to answers of points or to findings of fact or law, the part of the charge or the points and answers or findings referred to must be quoted totidem verbis in the assignment.”
All the assignments of error contained in the plaintiffs’ paper-book violate this rule.
The first, third and fourth, relating to instructions to the jury, contain no…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burkholder v. StahlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Fry v. FlickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sobai v. SobaiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Coyne v. Lackawanna CountySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913