Kendig v. Roberts

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kendig v. Roberts

40 A. 1022, 187 Pa. 339, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 813

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 21, 1898·No. Appeal, No. 3·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

This case was ably and correctly tried. Our consideration of the record, with special reference to each of the specifications, has satisfied us that neither of them can be sustained. All that can be profitably said in relation to either of the questions involved is contained in the opinion of the learned trial judge refusing the motion for new trial and directing judgment on the •verdict.

For reasons there given the specifications are overruled and judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam,

This case was ably and correctly tried. Our consideration of the record, with special reference to each of the specifications, has satisfied us that neither of them can be sustained. All that can be profitably said in relation to either of the questions involved is contained in the opinion of the learned trial judge refusing the motion for new trial and directing judgment on the •verdict.

For reasons there given the specifications are overruled and judgment affirmed.

Kendig v. Roberts, 40 A. 1022, 187 Pa. 339, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 813 (Pa. 1898).

Pincite

40 A. 1022 (Kendig v. Roberts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related