Smith v. Horn

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Smith v. Horn

31 A. 1078, 168 Pa. 372, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 805

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 20, 1895

DocketAppeal, No. 6

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A. 1078 (Smith v. Horn) 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

Smith v. Horn, 31 A. 1078, 168 Pa. 372, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 805 (Pa. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We find nothing in this record that requires us to sustain either of the assignments of error. When considered in connection with other parts of the learned trial judge’s charge, and especially in the light of the facts which the testimony tended to prove, the instructions recited in the first and second specifications are substantially correct. The same is true as to his answers to defendants’ points, recited in the remaining three specifications. The description in the deed of February 1865, from Magee, who is admitted to be the common source of title, is so vague and indefinite that it was necessary to resort to other evidence for the purpose of determining the' location of the dividing line between the lots, etc. It thus became a question of fact for the consideration of the jury, under all the testimony; and the case appears to have been submitted to them with substantially adequate and proper instructions.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

We find nothing in this record that requires us to sustain either of the assignments of error. When considered in connection with other parts of the learned trial judge’s charge, and especially in the light of the facts which the testimony tended to prove, the instructions recited in the first and second specifications are substantially correct. The same is true as to his answers to defendants’ points, recited in the remaining three specifications. The description in the deed of February 1865, from Magee, who is admitted to be the common source of title, is so vague and indefinite that it was necessary to resort to other evidence for the purpose of determining the' location of the dividing line between the lots, etc. It thus became a question of fact for the consideration of the jury, under all the testimony; and the case appears to have been submitted to them with substantially adequate and proper instructions.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A. 1078, 168 Pa. 372, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-horn-pa-1895.