Knupp v. Bright
40 A. 414, 186 Pa. 181, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 976
Opinion
We find nothing in this record that would justify us in sustaining either of the specifications of error.
- The able and ingenious argument of defendant’s counsel failed to convince us that the learned trial judge did not correctly answer all the points recited in said specifications. On the contrary, we think his construction of the contract sued on was substantially correct, as were his answers to each of the points referred to. There is nothing in any of the questions involved that requires discussion.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Knupp v. Bright, 40 A. 414, 186 Pa. 181, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 976 (Pa. 1898).
40 A. 414 (Knupp v. Bright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fite v. Miller
200 So. 285 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1940)
Kaster v. Pennsylvania Fuel Supply Co.
158 A. 288 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Higgins v. Grant
295 P. 532 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Pen-O-Tex Oil & Leasehold Co. v. Big Four Oil & Gas Co.
23 F.2d 154 (Third Circuit, 1927)