Charles v. Bishoff

1 A. 572, 1 Sadler 260, 1885 Pa. LEXIS 672
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 9, 1885·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The book was not offered in evidence as one of original entries. It was in connection with, and corroborative of, the parol evidence. It was properly received.

If the jury committed an error in returning a verdict for a sum greater than the evidence justified, the corrective power was in the court below. It was an error of fact, which we cannot correct here. There is no error in law.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Charles v. Bishoff, 1 A. 572, 1 Sadler 260, 1885 Pa. LEXIS 672 (Pa. 1885).

1 A. 572 (Charles v. Bishoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth Trust Co. v. First-Second National Bank
103 A. 598 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)