Nusbaum v. Louchheim Bros.

1 A. 391, 1 Sadler 106, 1885 Pa. LEXIS 647
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 19, 1885·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

At first we were inclined to think there was substantial error in the point covered by the sixth specification of error. A more careful consideration of it leads to the conclusion that the true meaning thereof was not misleading.

The word “fraud” is used as synonymous with “combination.” Hnder the other facts in the case, the latter, being proved, establishes the former. The evident meaning of the latter part of the point is that the jury might consider all the conduct and circumstances of the parties reasonably tending to [109]*109establish the combination. Thus understanding it, we see no error therein sufficient to call for a reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Nusbaum v. Louchheim Bros., 1 A. 391, 1 Sadler 106, 1885 Pa. LEXIS 647 (Pa. 1885).

1 A. 391 (Nusbaum v. Louchheim Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Atwater v. American Exchange Nat. Bank
152 Ill. 605 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1894)
William Golding v. Steamer C. Castro
20 La. 458 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1868)