Holmes v. Neafie & Levy
This text of 24 A. 1096 (Holmes v. Neafie & Levy) 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.
Opinion
We are not convinced that there is anything in either of the specifications of error that requires a reversal of the judgment entered on the verdict in favor of plaintiff. His right to recover depended upon questions of fact which were necessarily for the consideration and determination of the jury. Those questions appear to have been fairly submitted to them under adequate and proper instructions, and the facts, entitling plaintiff to a verdict, must have been found in his favor. Defendants’ points for charge, recited in the 6th to 12th specifications, inclusive, were rightly refused. Neither of the assignments of error is sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 A. 1096, 151 Pa. 392, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-neafie-levy-pa-1892.