Hyslop v. Crozier

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Hyslop v. Crozier

1 Miles 267

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedJune 7, 1836

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Miles 267 (Hyslop v. Crozier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hyslop v. Crozier, 1 Miles 267 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A party cannot be permitted to state to the jury the result of a previous award in his favour. He cannot read such [268]*268award to the jury in order to influence their minds. Shaeffer v. Kreitzer, 6 Binn. 480. And the stating the fact by the counsel, which has the same tendency, is too important an irregularity to be overlooked.

There must be strong special circumstances to induce the court, in cases of this kind, to refrain from granting a new trial.

Rule absolute.

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

Per Curiam.

A party cannot be permitted to state to the jury the result of a previous award in his favour. He cannot read such [268]*268award to the jury in order to influence their minds. Shaeffer v. Kreitzer, 6 Binn. 480. And the stating the fact by the counsel, which has the same tendency, is too important an irregularity to be overlooked.

There must be strong special circumstances to induce the court, in cases of this kind, to refrain from granting a new trial.

Rule absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Miles 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyslop-v-crozier-pactcomplphilad-1836.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack