Davis v. Galbraith

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Davis v. Galbraith

39 A. 222, 184 Pa. 442, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 918

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 24, 1898

DocketAppeal, No. 254

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A. 222 (Davis v. Galbraith) 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

Davis v. Galbraith, 39 A. 222, 184 Pa. 442, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 918 (Pa. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We find nothing in this record that would justify a reversal of the judgment entered on the verdict in favor of the defendant.

The first four specifications allege error in the excerpts, from the learned trial judge’s charge, recited therein. The subject of complaint in the fifth is “ that the charge, as a whole, was inadequate and tended to mislead the jury.” These specifications may be disposed of together in a few words. Considering the charge as a whole, we find no error therein of which the plaintiff has any just reason to complain. It is neither inadequate nor misleading. There is nothing in either of these specifications that requires further notice. Neither of them is sustained.

There was no error in permitting the witness to answer the question recited in the sixth and last specification.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

We find nothing in this record that would justify a reversal of the judgment entered on the verdict in favor of the defendant.

The first four specifications allege error in the excerpts, from the learned trial judge’s charge, recited therein. The subject of complaint in the fifth is “ that the charge, as a whole, was inadequate and tended to mislead the jury.” These specifications may be disposed of together in a few words. Considering the charge as a whole, we find no error therein of which the plaintiff has any just reason to complain. It is neither inadequate nor misleading. There is nothing in either of these specifications that requires further notice. Neither of them is sustained.

There was no error in permitting the witness to answer the question recited in the sixth and last specification.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A. 222, 184 Pa. 442, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-galbraith-pa-1898.