Boston v. Farr

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Boston v. Farr

23 A. 901, 148 Pa. 220, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 956

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 28, 1892

DocketAppeal, No. 119

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 23 A. 901 (Boston v. Farr) 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

Boston v. Farr, 23 A. 901, 148 Pa. 220, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 956 (Pa. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We find no error in this record. The court properly submitted to the jury the question of fact, whether the defendant made an original contract to pay the debt claimed in this action. He further instructed them that, unless it was an original contract, it would come within the statute of frauds, and [223]*223the plaintiff could not recover. The jury found for the plaintiff, for a portion of the claim only, that is, for the services rendered subsequent to the making of the contract. The appellant contended that there was no evidence to submit to the jury of an original contract. In this we think he was mistaken. The plaintiff testified that the defendant said to him: “ If the boy dies I don’t want any blame resting on me. You go and get the doctor and do all you can for the boy. I will see that you get your pay. He put it in just those words.” This was evidence from which the jury were justified in finding an original undertaking, and as the verdict was only for the services rendered after this time, there is no more to be said.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

We find no error in this record. The court properly submitted to the jury the question of fact, whether the defendant made an original contract to pay the debt claimed in this action. He further instructed them that, unless it was an original contract, it would come within the statute of frauds, and [223]*223the plaintiff could not recover. The jury found for the plaintiff, for a portion of the claim only, that is, for the services rendered subsequent to the making of the contract. The appellant contended that there was no evidence to submit to the jury of an original contract. In this we think he was mistaken. The plaintiff testified that the defendant said to him: “ If the boy dies I don’t want any blame resting on me. You go and get the doctor and do all you can for the boy. I will see that you get your pay. He put it in just those words.” This was evidence from which the jury were justified in finding an original undertaking, and as the verdict was only for the services rendered after this time, there is no more to be said.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 901, 148 Pa. 220, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-v-farr-pa-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack