Blair v. Boring

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Blair v. Boring

49 A. 365, 200 Pa. 27, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 435

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 4, 1901

DocketAppeal, No. 93

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A. 365 (Blair v. Boring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blair v. Boring, 49 A. 365, 200 Pa. 27, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 435 (Pa. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff contends that the learned judge of the court below erred in directing the jury to render a verdict for the [29]*29defendant. It is not shown, however, that .the alleged error has any substantial ground to rest upon. A careful consideration of the argument made in his behalf has not convinced us that there is error in the charge or in the direction to the jury which resulted in the verdict complained of. That which the plaintiff has assailed as error appears to be entirely free from it. It seems to us that the direction to the jury was precisely what it should be, and that a submission of the case to the jury for their determination would have been clear error. It follows from this view of the case that the learned judge of the court below committed no error in directing the jury to render a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff contends that the learned judge of the court below erred in directing the jury to render a verdict for the [29]*29defendant. It is not shown, however, that .the alleged error has any substantial ground to rest upon. A careful consideration of the argument made in his behalf has not convinced us that there is error in the charge or in the direction to the jury which resulted in the verdict complained of. That which the plaintiff has assailed as error appears to be entirely free from it. It seems to us that the direction to the jury was precisely what it should be, and that a submission of the case to the jury for their determination would have been clear error. It follows from this view of the case that the learned judge of the court below committed no error in directing the jury to render a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A. 365, 200 Pa. 27, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blair-v-boring-pa-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack