McGlaughlin v. Shaffer

Armstrong County Court of Common Pleas

McGlaughlin v. Shaffer

3 Pennyp. 98

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Armstrong County·Decided December 6, 1882·No. No. 204·Published

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] Court 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] Court below to the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff was entirely right.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pincite

3 Pennyp. 98 (McGlaughlin v. Shaffer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.