Murdock v. Martin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Murdock v. Martin

23 A. 804, 147 Pa. 203, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 814

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 25, 1892

DocketAppeal, No. 348

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A. 804 (Murdock v. Martin) 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

Murdock v. Martin, 23 A. 804, 147 Pa. 203, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 814 (Pa. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per. Curiam,

The appellant has not printed his declaration as required by the rule of court. There is nothing, therefore, in the paper book which enables us to gather with certainty the cause of action. Both of the assignments of error refer to the declaration and it is impossible to rule them accurately without an examination of it. We would be justified in affirming the judgment for this reason alone. We infer, however, from the bill of ex[205]*205ceptions, that the court below granted the nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced any evidence' to sustain his allegation that there had been a sale of the business of the firm which had made the contract. There is certainly nothing in the evidence to show there had been such a sale within the meaning of said contract.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per. Curiam,

The appellant has not printed his declaration as required by the rule of court. There is nothing, therefore, in the paper book which enables us to gather with certainty the cause of action. Both of the assignments of error refer to the declaration and it is impossible to rule them accurately without an examination of it. We would be justified in affirming the judgment for this reason alone. We infer, however, from the bill of ex[205]*205ceptions, that the court below granted the nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced any evidence' to sustain his allegation that there had been a sale of the business of the firm which had made the contract. There is certainly nothing in the evidence to show there had been such a sale within the meaning of said contract.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 804, 147 Pa. 203, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murdock-v-martin-pa-1892.