Arons v. Smit

34 A. 234, 173 Pa. 630, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 754
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 17, 1896·No. Appeal, No. 83·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case appears to have been tried on its merits without strict regard to the questions of fact presented in the affidavit of defense. Testimony was accordingly introduced that war[633] ranted the learned trial judge in charging as complained of in the first specification. After such testimony has been received, without objection, and the case submitted to the jury on the evidence thus before them, it is too late to complain of the introduction of testimony that was not strictly relevant under the issue presented by plaintiff’s statement and the defendant’s answer thereto. We find no error in the record, of which the defendant has any just reason to complain.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arons v. Smit, 34 A. 234, 173 Pa. 630, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 754 (Pa. 1896).

34 A. 234 (Arons v. Smit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ogden v. Belfield
82 Pa. Super. 534 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Saxman v. McCormick
122 A. 296 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Derrick v. Harwood Electric Co.
111 A. 48 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Gorman v. Bigler
8 Pa. Super. 440 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)