Farwell v. Kohler

1 Pennyp. 94
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 7, 1881
DocketNo. 135
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Pennyp. 94 (Farwell v. Kohler) 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
Farwell v. Kohler, 1 Pennyp. 94 (Pa. 1881).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We find no error in the charge of the learned Court. There was no evidence in the case fixing the southern line of the tract. There was no official survey produced showing either the lines or the adjoiners, and if there was some testimony as to the northern line of the Willing tract that proved nothing. Under these circumstances, when Kohler acted under the information given to him by Mayers, to whom he was referred by Farwell, and who directed him to the Baird line, even if that was a mistake of Mayers, it would be a very harsh measure of justice to deny Kohler compensation for the timber which he had actually cut and delivered under his contract.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Clymer-Jones Lithograph Co. v. United States Fashion & Sample Book Co.
48 Pa. Super. 636 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Pennyp. 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farwell-v-kohler-pa-1881.