Mason v. Connell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Mason v. Connell

1 Whart. 381, 1836 Pa. LEXIS 206

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 5, 1836

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1 Whart. 381 (Mason v. Connell) 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

Mason v. Connell, 1 Whart. 381, 1836 Pa. LEXIS 206 (Pa. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Sergeant, J.

After a review of this case on the present motion for a new trial, we are of opinion, that the charge of the Judge, who tried the cause, was correct in matters of law, and that the only question, on which doubt could be entertained, was a question of fact, whether or not Welsh assented to the partnership. That question was left fairly to the jury, who have decided in favour of the defendants. And supposing the Court might have felt a difficulty in arriving at the same conclusion, that is not a sufficient reason for setting aside the verdict. The jury are the proper judges of facts; and the Court will not, in that respect, interfere with their verdict, unless it be against the weight of evidence. Should the Court do so, they would virtually take from the jury their peculiar [392]*392province. In the present case the evidence presents no circumstance, by which the assent of Welsh is so satisfactorily established, that a conclusion might not be drawn of its non-existence. That conclusion the jury have come to, and there it must rest.

• Motion for a new trial denied.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Sergeant, J.

After a review of this case on the present motion for a new trial, we are of opinion, that the charge of the Judge, who tried the cause, was correct in matters of law, and that the only question, on which doubt could be entertained, was a question of fact, whether or not Welsh assented to the partnership. That question was left fairly to the jury, who have decided in favour of the defendants. And supposing the Court might have felt a difficulty in arriving at the same conclusion, that is not a sufficient reason for setting aside the verdict. The jury are the proper judges of facts; and the Court will not, in that respect, interfere with their verdict, unless it be against the weight of evidence. Should the Court do so, they would virtually take from the jury their peculiar [392]*392province. In the present case the evidence presents no circumstance, by which the assent of Welsh is so satisfactorily established, that a conclusion might not be drawn of its non-existence. That conclusion the jury have come to, and there it must rest.

• Motion for a new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Whart. 381, 1836 Pa. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-connell-pa-1836.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack