Rigler v. Light

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Rigler v. Light

90 Pa. 235, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 232

DecidedMay 26, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 90 Pa. 235 (Rigler v. Light) 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

Rigler v. Light, 90 Pa. 235, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 232 (Pa. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered,

Per Curiam.

We must give to the finding of the court below upon the question of fact, all the effect which the report of an auditor would have had. To reverse we must convict of palpable error. There was evidence from which the conclusion arrived at might very reasonably be drawn. A witness present testified that Light said in the presence of Gingrich, that his wife must be secured or she wouldn’t release or sign off. If a second mortgage only was meant, Gingrich’s assent was unnecessary. Something more was intended. His conversation with B.igler subsequently shows that he understood it was' to be a first mortgage. No objection has been raised to the decree that the fund was not in court.

Decree affirmed and .appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

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

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered,

Per Curiam.

We must give to the finding of the court below upon the question of fact, all the effect which the report of an auditor would have had. To reverse we must convict of palpable error. There was evidence from which the conclusion arrived at might very reasonably be drawn. A witness present testified that Light said in the presence of Gingrich, that his wife must be secured or she wouldn’t release or sign off. If a second mortgage only was meant, Gingrich’s assent was unnecessary. Something more was intended. His conversation with B.igler subsequently shows that he understood it was' to be a first mortgage. No objection has been raised to the decree that the fund was not in court.

Decree affirmed and .appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Pa. 235, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rigler-v-light-pa-1879.