Herron v. Henry

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Herron v. Henry

89 A. 590, 242 Pa. 494, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 915

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 7, 1913

DocketAppeal, No. 121

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A. 590 (Herron v. Henry) 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

Herron v. Henry, 89 A. 590, 242 Pa. 494, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 915 (Pa. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

As a defense to the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant relied at the trial of this case solely on an award. [497]*497which had been made years before in his favor by a board of arbitrators selected under the rules of the Grain and Flour Exchange of Pittsburgh, to settle the dispute between him and the appellee; but that award on appeal to the general committee of the exchange, taken under its rules, was reversed, and was therefore unavailing to the defendant in this proceeding, unless the action of the general committee was vitiated by fraud. With the exclusion of the original award made in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict under the pleadings, and that the said award was properly excluded clearly appears from the opinion of the court below denying a motion for a new trial. Nothing need be added to it. J udgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

As a defense to the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant relied at the trial of this case solely on an award. [497]*497which had been made years before in his favor by a board of arbitrators selected under the rules of the Grain and Flour Exchange of Pittsburgh, to settle the dispute between him and the appellee; but that award on appeal to the general committee of the exchange, taken under its rules, was reversed, and was therefore unavailing to the defendant in this proceeding, unless the action of the general committee was vitiated by fraud. With the exclusion of the original award made in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict under the pleadings, and that the said award was properly excluded clearly appears from the opinion of the court below denying a motion for a new trial. Nothing need be added to it. J udgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A. 590, 242 Pa. 494, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herron-v-henry-pa-1913.