Carskaddon v. Miller

31 Pa. Super. 94, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 163
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 14, 1906
DocketAppeal, No. 18
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 Pa. Super. 94 (Carskaddon v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carskaddon v. Miller, 31 Pa. Super. 94, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 163 (Pa. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

Opinion by

Beaver, J.,

When this case was previously here — Carskaddon v. Miller, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 47, — it was sent back, in order that the testimony contained in an offer, fully set forth in the opinion, which had been rejected in the trial, should be heard. We then said:

“ Taking the offer as verity, as we are bound to do, it was evidence to show the interpretation which the parties placed upon it (the agreement under which the note was held by the plaintiff), and was an admission on the part of the plaintiff that she held it subject to her father’s control, and that it was his and not hers.”

On the retrial, the testimony was admitted. The offer was made good. The issue of fact thereby raised was fairly submitted to the jury. Its finding is in favor of the defendant and distinctly negatives the contention of the plaintiff that the note upon which the suit was founded was a gift from her father to her.

There is nothing else in the case. It was fairly tried. The testimony was competent and was carefully submitted to the jury. The verdict should stand.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Killeen's Estate
165 A. 34 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Pa. Super. 94, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carskaddon-v-miller-pasuperct-1906.