Jennings v. Morris
61 A. 115, 211 Pa. 600, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 514
Opinion
The learned referee in the court below reviewed the evi[606]*606dence with great care, and found as a fact, evidently with reluctance arising from the dishonesty of the defense, that the transactions out of which the plaintiff’s claim arose were wagering agreements not enforceable at law. To the facts thus found he applied the law with entire accuracy, and after a most careful examination we are forced to sustain his conclusions.
Judgment affirmed on the report of the referee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jennings v. Morris, 61 A. 115, 211 Pa. 600, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 514 (Pa. 1905).
61 A. 115 (Jennings v. Morris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Pennsylvania Co-Operative Potato Growers, Inc. v. Naunczek
208 A.2d 21 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1965)
Hosack v. Taylor Bros.
15 A.2d 489 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Eichleay, Jr., Co. v. Antonoplos
164 A. 343 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Taylor v. Starr
1924 OK 649 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
W. M. Bell Co. v. Emberson
196 N.W. 861 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1924)
Young v. Stephenson
1921 OK 164 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Snider v. Harvey
64 A. 687 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
Morris v. Jennings
61 A. 117 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)