Ringrose v. Bloomsburg

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ringrose v. Bloomsburg

31 A. 863, 167 Pa. 621, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 959

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 29, 1895

DocketAppeal, No. 215

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A. 863 (Ringrose v. Bloomsburg) 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

Ringrose v. Bloomsburg, 31 A. 863, 167 Pa. 621, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 959 (Pa. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case depended on questions of fact, — arising out of the testimony, — which were for the exclusive determination of the jury. They were fairly submitted to them with instructions which were fully adequate and at the same time free from substantial error.

The only subject of complaint is the refusal of the learned judge to withdraw the case from the jury by binding instructions to find for the defendant. To have done that would have been manifest error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This case depended on questions of fact, — arising out of the testimony, — which were for the exclusive determination of the jury. They were fairly submitted to them with instructions which were fully adequate and at the same time free from substantial error.

The only subject of complaint is the refusal of the learned judge to withdraw the case from the jury by binding instructions to find for the defendant. To have done that would have been manifest error.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A. 863, 167 Pa. 621, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ringrose-v-bloomsburg-pa-1895.