McGlaughlin v. Shaffer

Armstrong County Court of Common Pleas

McGlaughlin v. Shaffer

3 Pennyp. 98

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Armstrong County

DecidedDecember 6, 1882

DocketNo. 204

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pennyp. 98 (McGlaughlin v. Shaffer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Armstrong County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGlaughlin v. Shaffer, 3 Pennyp. 98 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

— Per Curiam

: The judgment of Esquire Dailey, from which the plaintiff in error appealed to the Court below, showed on its face that a transcript from the docket of Esquire Haslett had been filed with him. That transcript showed on its face a judgment against Logue for $299 and interest, $4 38. There was no necessity for the parol testimony of Esquire Hazlett to explain it. We think the instruction of the learned [101]*101Court below to the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff was entirely right.

Judgment affirmed.

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

— Per Curiam

: The judgment of Esquire Dailey, from which the plaintiff in error appealed to the Court below, showed on its face that a transcript from the docket of Esquire Haslett had been filed with him. That transcript showed on its face a judgment against Logue for $299 and interest, $4 38. There was no necessity for the parol testimony of Esquire Hazlett to explain it. We think the instruction of the learned [101]*101Court below to the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff was entirely right.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pennyp. 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcglaughlin-v-shaffer-pactcomplarmstr-1882.