Arnold v. Blabon
23 A. 575, 147 Pa. 372, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 859
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 8, 1892·No. Appeal, No. 101·Published·Cited by 10 cases
Opinion
The first specification of error is not properly assigned, and if it had been it would not have helped the appellant, as the evidence was properly admitted. A careful examination of the remaining specification fails to disclose error on the part of the court. The error, if any, was with the jury.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Arnold v. Blabon, 23 A. 575, 147 Pa. 372, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 859 (Pa. 1892).
23 A. 575 (Arnold v. Blabon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ætna Explosives Co. v. Diamond Alkali Co.
121 A. 201 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Delmont Gas Coal Co. v. Diamond Alkali Co.
119 A. 710 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Seward v. Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Co.
109 A. 617 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Riess v. Myers
57 Pa. Super. 243 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Rotograph Co. v. Cressman
41 Pa. Super. 14 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)
Morris v. Supplee
57 A. 566 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Pittsburg Sheet Manufacturing Co. v. West Penn Sheet Steel Co.
50 A. 935 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Haines, Jones & Cadbury Co. v. Young
13 Pa. Super. 303 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)
Kinports v. Breon
44 A. 436 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)
Theiss v. Weiss
31 A. 63 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1895)