Wilkinson v. Becker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Wilkinson v. Becker

26 A. 298, 155 Pa. 194, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1220

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 3, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 64

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A. 298 (Wilkinson v. Becker) 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

Wilkinson v. Becker, 26 A. 298, 155 Pa. 194, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1220 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctteiam,

We have examined the several assignments of error in this case but see no reason for disturbing the judgment. The question of substantial performance of the contract was submitted to the jury and they have found that there was no substantial performance. If this is right, as wo must assume it to be, the plaintiff had no right to recover. It would seem, upon the whole ease as it is presented to us, that a very strict rule was applied by the jury; but on the other hand the record shows that the case was reviewed by the court below on a motion for a new trial, and the motion refused. The inference is plain that both the jury and the judge before whom the case was tried were satisfied that there ought to be no recovery. However this may be the case was properly submitted and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Pee Ctteiam,

We have examined the several assignments of error in this case but see no reason for disturbing the judgment. The question of substantial performance of the contract was submitted to the jury and they have found that there was no substantial performance. If this is right, as wo must assume it to be, the plaintiff had no right to recover. It would seem, upon the whole ease as it is presented to us, that a very strict rule was applied by the jury; but on the other hand the record shows that the case was reviewed by the court below on a motion for a new trial, and the motion refused. The inference is plain that both the jury and the judge before whom the case was tried were satisfied that there ought to be no recovery. However this may be the case was properly submitted and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A. 298, 155 Pa. 194, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-becker-pa-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack