Moore v. Miller

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Moore v. Miller

4 Serg. & Rawle 279

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 13, 1818·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

By The Court.

The Judge, after expressing his own opinion on the construction of the award, left it to .the jury to determine what was the' intention of the referees. T his was error. The jury should have been told what was the legal import of the award, and upon that point nothing should have been left to them, because it was a pure unmixed matter of law. The judgment, therefore, must be reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

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

By The Court.

The Judge, after expressing his own opinion on the construction of the award, left it to .the jury to determine what was the' intention of the referees. T his was error. The jury should have been told what was the legal import of the award, and upon that point nothing should have been left to them, because it was a pure unmixed matter of law. The judgment, therefore, must be reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Moore v. Miller, 4 Serg. & Rawle 279 (Pa. 1818).

Pincite

4 Serg. & Rawle 279 (Moore v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related