Kline v. Caplan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Kline v. Caplan

84 Pa. Super. 220, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 250

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 17, 1924

DocketAppeal, 116

StatusPublished

This text of 84 Pa. Super. 220 (Kline v. Caplan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kline v. Caplan, 84 Pa. Super. 220, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 250 (Pa. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

These parties conducted a business together for a certain time, each one contributing what he pleased. The partnership agreement was verbal, and the terms of the dissolution agreement are disputed. The jury was instructed, “the real question for you to settle is, as to what were the terms of the dissolution agreement? If you adopt Capian’s statement Kline would be entitled to a verdict of $118.75, and if you adopt Kline’s theory of the case, he would be entitled to a verdict of $400 with interest.” The jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $140. On the hearing of a motion for a new trial, the disputed questions were again reviewed by the trial judge.

After a careful examination of the charge of the court and its opinion in refusing to grant a new trial, we are satisfied that no reversible error was committed.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

These parties conducted a business together for a certain time, each one contributing what he pleased. The partnership agreement was verbal, and the terms of the dissolution agreement are disputed. The jury was instructed, “the real question for you to settle is, as to what were the terms of the dissolution agreement? If you adopt Capian’s statement Kline would be entitled to a verdict of $118.75, and if you adopt Kline’s theory of the case, he would be entitled to a verdict of $400 with interest.” The jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $140. On the hearing of a motion for a new trial, the disputed questions were again reviewed by the trial judge.

After a careful examination of the charge of the court and its opinion in refusing to grant a new trial, we are satisfied that no reversible error was committed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Pa. Super. 220, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kline-v-caplan-pasuperct-1924.