Goldstrohm v. Stinner

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Goldstrohm v. Stinner

25 A. 765, 155 Pa. 28, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1173

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 3, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 129

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 A. 765 (Goldstrohm v. Stinner) 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

Goldstrohm v. Stinner, 25 A. 765, 155 Pa. 28, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1173 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

There is but a single specification of error in this case, and that is to a portion of the charge of the court. We cannot say it contains any serious error. There was but a single question of fact in the case, and that was, whether the plaintiff sold his stock of goods to the defendant, or to his sons. The jury have [30]*30found that' he sold them to the defendant, and there is nothing in that portion of the charge of the learned judge assigned as error .that would justify us in reversing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

There is but a single specification of error in this case, and that is to a portion of the charge of the court. We cannot say it contains any serious error. There was but a single question of fact in the case, and that was, whether the plaintiff sold his stock of goods to the defendant, or to his sons. The jury have [30]*30found that' he sold them to the defendant, and there is nothing in that portion of the charge of the learned judge assigned as error .that would justify us in reversing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 765, 155 Pa. 28, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstrohm-v-stinner-pa-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack