Campbell v. Brown

38 A. 516, 183 Pa. 112, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 722
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 25, 1897·No. Appeal, No. 142·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The first five specifications allege error in excluding the several offers of testimony recited therein. The sixth to ninth, inclusive, complain of the findings of fact therein set forth. The tenth to thirteenth, inclusive, allege error in the several conclusions of law stated therein, and the fourteenth charges error in the decree dismissing the plaintiff’s bill.

We have carefully considered the record, including the evi[122] tience relating to these specifications, and are satisfied that neither of them should be sustained; nor do we think that any of them requires discussion. Finding no substantial error in either of the trial judge’s rulings on questions of evidence, or in his conclusions of fact and law, the decree should not be disturbed.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.

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

Campbell v. Brown, 38 A. 516, 183 Pa. 112, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 722 (Pa. 1897).

38 A. 516 (Campbell v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donsavage Estate
218 A.2d 112 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Philo v. Rought
5 Pa. D. & C.2d 303 (Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, 1954)
Chambley v. Rumbaugh
5 A.2d 171 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Honan v. Donaldson
200 A. 30 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Gallagher v. Rogan
199 A. 168 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Tuttle's Estate
200 A. 921 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Weaver v. Welsh
191 A. 3 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
King v. Lemmer
173 A. 176 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
Fiscus v. Fiscus
116 A. 293 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)