Lasher v. Fahnestock Printing Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Lasher v. Fahnestock Printing Co.

69 A. 1118, 221 Pa. 49, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 430

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 27, 1908

DocketAppeal, No. 207

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A. 1118 (Lasher v. Fahnestock Printing Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Lasher v. Fahnestock Printing Co., 69 A. 1118, 221 Pa. 49, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 430 (Pa. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This was assumpsit for excessive use of electricity by the defendant. Plaintiff as landlord covenanted in consideration of the rent to supply electric power to the extent of five horse power, not to be metered, and to furnish additional horse power at the rate of $75.00 per annum per horse power. In explaining to the jury his reason for a non-suit, the learned judge below said the evidence “is too indefi[50]*50nite for you to endeavor to estimate the amount of horse power which the defendants used. As I said before, it is quite possible that the plaintiff did furnish excess horsepower; but the burden is upon him to show how much; and it is not possible for you to estimate what horse power the defendants used because the meter from which the readings for two months were taken was one which did not register.horse power, but which registered something else. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible for you to give a verdict for the plaintiff. I, therefore, direct that a nonsuit be entered.” An examination of the whole evidence fails to show any error in his action.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This was assumpsit for excessive use of electricity by the defendant. Plaintiff as landlord covenanted in consideration of the rent to supply electric power to the extent of five horse power, not to be metered, and to furnish additional horse power at the rate of $75.00 per annum per horse power. In explaining to the jury his reason for a non-suit, the learned judge below said the evidence “is too indefi[50]*50nite for you to endeavor to estimate the amount of horse power which the defendants used. As I said before, it is quite possible that the plaintiff did furnish excess horsepower; but the burden is upon him to show how much; and it is not possible for you to estimate what horse power the defendants used because the meter from which the readings for two months were taken was one which did not register.horse power, but which registered something else. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible for you to give a verdict for the plaintiff. I, therefore, direct that a nonsuit be entered.” An examination of the whole evidence fails to show any error in his action.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A. 1118, 221 Pa. 49, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lasher-v-fahnestock-printing-co-pa-1908.