Kent Iron & Hardware Co. v. Norbeck & Miley
This text of 24 A. 737 (Kent Iron & Hardware Co. v. Norbeck & Miley) 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.
Opinion
The defendant’s third and fourth points prayed for a binding instruction in their favor. This was properly refused, and such refusal forms the subject of the first and second specifications. The third is not properly assigned, and will not be considered. The remaining specification alleges error in the charge of the court. We think that portion of it embraced within the specification, is free from criticism. It left the jury to find whether the buggies in question were the property of the plaintiff. This was the only material fact in the case, and, as it was properly submitted, the judgment must be
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 A. 737, 150 Pa. 559, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-iron-hardware-co-v-norbeck-miley-pa-1892.