Stoner v. Miller's Executors

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas

Stoner v. Miller's Executors

8 Pa. D. & C. 160, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 291

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County

DecidedMarch 20, 1926

DocketNo. 68

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Pa. D. & C. 160 (Stoner v. Miller's Executors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stoner v. Miller's Executors, 8 Pa. D. & C. 160, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 291 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Landis, P. J.,

This case was certified by the Orphans’ Court to this court for the purpose of trying an issue framed in that court. Under our directions, the questions propounded were duly and, as we think, properly answered by the jury. Counsel for the defendants now ask us to enter judgment non obstante veredicto.

It must be remembered that we were not requested to find a verdict in favor of one party or the other, nor did we do so. All that was certified from the Orphans’ Court was two questions of fact which that court desired to have answered. These answers as rendered will be certified back to the Orphans’ Court, and that court may receive them and give them full effect, or it may disregard them and decide the case as it sees fit. But we have no right to enter a general verdict, and we certainly cannot enter judgment non obstante veredicto. For this reason, the present motion is overruled and dismissed. Motion overruled.

From George Ross Eshleman, Lancaster, Pa.

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

Landis, P. J.,

This case was certified by the Orphans’ Court to this court for the purpose of trying an issue framed in that court. Under our directions, the questions propounded were duly and, as we think, properly answered by the jury. Counsel for the defendants now ask us to enter judgment non obstante veredicto.

It must be remembered that we were not requested to find a verdict in favor of one party or the other, nor did we do so. All that was certified from the Orphans’ Court was two questions of fact which that court desired to have answered. These answers as rendered will be certified back to the Orphans’ Court, and that court may receive them and give them full effect, or it may disregard them and decide the case as it sees fit. But we have no right to enter a general verdict, and we certainly cannot enter judgment non obstante veredicto. For this reason, the present motion is overruled and dismissed. Motion overruled.

From George Ross Eshleman, Lancaster, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Pa. D. & C. 160, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoner-v-millers-executors-pactcompllancas-1926.