Jones v. Kroll

8 A. 857, 116 Pa. 85, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 365
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 11, 1887·No. No. 80·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Conceding that there was error in leaving to the jury to find the construction which should be given to the written lease, yet inasmuch as they found it what the court should have declared it to be, and what the learned judge in fact stated in discharging the rule for a new trial, the plaintiff in error has no just cause of complaint. He attempted by parol evidence, to induce the jury to give an erroneous construction to the written instrument, but having failed in. this, he must now submit to the verdict and the judgment entered thereon.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Jones v. Kroll, 8 A. 857, 116 Pa. 85, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 365 (Pa. 1887).

8 A. 857 (Jones v. Kroll) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Local 325 of United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Commonwealth
571 A.2d 557 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1990)
Korkonikitas v. Allegheny General Hospital
249 A.2d 318 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)
Aaron v. Woodcock
128 A. 665 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
J. W. Reccius & Bro. v. Columbia Finance & Trust Co.
86 S.W. 1113 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1905)