Jaffray & Co. v. Frothingham

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Jaffray & Co. v. Frothingham

23 A. 1001, 148 Pa. 213, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 953

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 28, 1892

DocketAppeal, No. 198

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 23 A. 1001 (Jaffray & Co. v. Frothingham) 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

Jaffray & Co. v. Frothingham, 23 A. 1001, 148 Pa. 213, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 953 (Pa. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The second specification alleges that the court erred in instructing the jury that: “It seems that, after these notes became due, they were given by the persons who held them to the present plaintiffs in this case, Jaffray & Co.” It was contended by the appellants that there was no evidence to sustain this ruling. It may be conceded that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiffs did not receive the notes until after their maturity. That this was a mere slip, or unintentional error, on tho part of the judge, is apparent from an examination of his charge. If it had been called to his attention at the time, it would have been promptly corrected. The most careful judge is liable, at times, in the hurry of trial, to make such a mistake as this, and, in such cases, it is only fair that his attention should be called to it below, in order that he may correct it. In the present instance, we do not think it necessary to reverse the judgment for this reason, because, in our opinion, it could have done the plaintiffs no harm. There was sufficient [216]*216evidence before the jury, with the surrounding circumstances of the ease, to throw discredit upon the notes, and require the plaintiffs to show that they were taken before maturity, and for value. This was not done.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The second specification alleges that the court erred in instructing the jury that: “It seems that, after these notes became due, they were given by the persons who held them to the present plaintiffs in this case, Jaffray & Co.” It was contended by the appellants that there was no evidence to sustain this ruling. It may be conceded that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiffs did not receive the notes until after their maturity. That this was a mere slip, or unintentional error, on tho part of the judge, is apparent from an examination of his charge. If it had been called to his attention at the time, it would have been promptly corrected. The most careful judge is liable, at times, in the hurry of trial, to make such a mistake as this, and, in such cases, it is only fair that his attention should be called to it below, in order that he may correct it. In the present instance, we do not think it necessary to reverse the judgment for this reason, because, in our opinion, it could have done the plaintiffs no harm. There was sufficient [216]*216evidence before the jury, with the surrounding circumstances of the ease, to throw discredit upon the notes, and require the plaintiffs to show that they were taken before maturity, and for value. This was not done.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 1001, 148 Pa. 213, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaffray-co-v-frothingham-pa-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack