Chase v. Vandergrift
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: Of October and November Term 1878, Nos. 94 and 802. These were writs of error in one of which Lanman Chase was plaintiff in error, and Jacob G. Yandergrift and George V. Foreman were defendants j and in the other, The Acme Oil Company-plain tiff in error, and the defendant, Hugh O’Hare.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: Of October and November Term 1878, Nos. 94 and 802. These were writs of error in one of which Lanman Chase was plaintiff in error, and Jacob G. Yandergrift and George V. Foreman were defendants j and in the other, The Acme Oil Company-plain tiff in error, and the defendant, Hugh O’Hare. The Supreme Court, as will be observed by the subjoined opinion, found no error in the record in these cases and affirmed the court below; but in the argument before this court, the question was raised, whether the stenographer’s note of a bill of…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered January 6th . 1879,
2Per curiam
A question is raised in these cases whether the stenographer’s note of a bill of exceptions to the admission or rejection of evidence is sufficient; or is it essential the bill should be actually sealed by the judge. A careful examination of the Act ■ of 8th May 1876, Pamph. L. 140, leads to the belief the note is sufficient. That act is a substitute for the Act of 15th May 1874, and goes somewhat beyond it. The first section provides for the appointment by the president or law judge of a stenographer to b.e attached to the…
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth ex rel. Arrott Steam Power Mills Co. v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Connell v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Commonwealth v. SternSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915