Mathushek Piano Manufacturing Co. v. Engberry

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Mathushek Piano Manufacturing Co. v. Engberry

30 Pa. Super. 543, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 117

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 23, 1906

DocketAppeal, No. 55

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 Pa. Super. 543 (Mathushek Piano Manufacturing Co. v. Engberry) 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

Mathushek Piano Manufacturing Co. v. Engberry, 30 Pa. Super. 543, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 117 (Pa. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

All of the assignments of error based upon the charge must be dismissed, because the appellant did not except to the charge, [544]*544nor request' that it be reduced to writing and filed, before verdict rendered: Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492. To the assignments based on the answers to the points and the admission of testimony there is the additional objection that the points and the testimony referred to are not set out in the assignments, as required by rules XV and XVI. As to the eighth assignment, it is sufficient to say, that the refusal to grant a new trial is not ground for reversal unless there be manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion, and that nothing of that kind appears here.

All the assignments of error are dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

All of the assignments of error based upon the charge must be dismissed, because the appellant did not except to the charge, [544]*544nor request' that it be reduced to writing and filed, before verdict rendered: Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492. To the assignments based on the answers to the points and the admission of testimony there is the additional objection that the points and the testimony referred to are not set out in the assignments, as required by rules XV and XVI. As to the eighth assignment, it is sufficient to say, that the refusal to grant a new trial is not ground for reversal unless there be manifest and flagrant abuse of discretion, and that nothing of that kind appears here.

All the assignments of error are dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Pa. Super. 543, 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathushek-piano-manufacturing-co-v-engberry-pasuperct-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack