Goldstrohm v. Stinner

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Goldstrohm v. Stinner

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 3, 1893·No. Appeal, No. 129·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

Pincite

25 A. 765 (Goldstrohm v. Stinner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related