R. J. Ederer Net & Twine Co. v. Young

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

R. J. Ederer Net & Twine Co. v. Young

116 A. 801, 273 Pa. 161, 1922 Pa. LEXIS 540

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 20, 1922

DocketAppeal, No. 66

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A. 801 (R. J. Ederer Net & Twine Co. v. Young) 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

R. J. Ederer Net & Twine Co. v. Young, 116 A. 801, 273 Pa. 161, 1922 Pa. LEXIS 540 (Pa. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The court below entered a nonsuit, which it subsequently refused to remove; hence this appeal by plaintiffs. The eighth specification of error complains because the trial judge sustained a motion to strike from the record all the evidence now relied on to sustain the present appeal, but appellants fail to print, in the assignment, the evidence stricken out; this is contrary to our rules of court. We have examined the testimony, however, and are not convinced the court below erred in its view that the proofs depended on were not sufficient to take plaintiff’s case out of the clause of the statute of frauds which provides against the enforcement of a verbal promise to become responsible for the debt or default of another.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The court below entered a nonsuit, which it subsequently refused to remove; hence this appeal by plaintiffs. The eighth specification of error complains because the trial judge sustained a motion to strike from the record all the evidence now relied on to sustain the present appeal, but appellants fail to print, in the assignment, the evidence stricken out; this is contrary to our rules of court. We have examined the testimony, however, and are not convinced the court below erred in its view that the proofs depended on were not sufficient to take plaintiff’s case out of the clause of the statute of frauds which provides against the enforcement of a verbal promise to become responsible for the debt or default of another.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A. 801, 273 Pa. 161, 1922 Pa. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-j-ederer-net-twine-co-v-young-pa-1922.