Sayer v. Schroeder

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Sayer v. Schroeder

2 Pennyp. 79

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 13, 1882

DocketNo. 198

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Pennyp. 79 (Sayer v. Schroeder) 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

Sayer v. Schroeder, 2 Pennyp. 79 (Pa. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

— Per Curiam :

The Court below were not requested by the plaintiff: to charge the jury in any particular way, and the second and third assignments must fall on that account. There can be no reversal for a mere omission to charge. As to the first assignment, it did the plaintiff'in error no harm. The revival of the judgment, April 2d, 1873, was by amicable action. To such an agreement, by the Act of 26th March, 1827, P. L., 129, the terre tenant is a necessary party to continue the lien: Armstrong’s Appeal, 5 W. & S., 352.

Judgment affirmed.

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

— Per Curiam :

The Court below were not requested by the plaintiff: to charge the jury in any particular way, and the second and third assignments must fall on that account. There can be no reversal for a mere omission to charge. As to the first assignment, it did the plaintiff'in error no harm. The revival of the judgment, April 2d, 1873, was by amicable action. To such an agreement, by the Act of 26th March, 1827, P. L., 129, the terre tenant is a necessary party to continue the lien: Armstrong’s Appeal, 5 W. & S., 352.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Pennyp. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sayer-v-schroeder-pa-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack