Crawford v. Forest Oil Co.
This text of 42 A. 39 (Crawford v. Forest Oil Co.) 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.
Opinion
The plaintiff’s receipt was in full for the professional services for which he now claims additional compensation. The oral testimony of the plaintiff being absolutely opposed by the testimony of Mr. Cummins is insufficient to warrant the jury in disregarding the receipt. There was no evidence of services rendered after the receipt was given, and hence the plaintiff’s claim was limited to those which were rendered before the receipt. The learned court below was entirely right in directing a verdict for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
42 A. 39, 189 Pa. 415, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-forest-oil-co-pa-1899.