Worrall v. Pyle
19 A. 341, 132 Pa. 529, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 847
Opinion
We find no error in this record. If the evidence, the rejection of which is assigned for error, was admissible, which is by no means clear, the defendant below does not appear to have been injured by its rejection, as nearly all that is covered by the exceptions was subsequently admitted, and went to the jury. There is nothing in the case which requires discussion.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Worrall v. Pyle, 19 A. 341, 132 Pa. 529, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 847 (Pa. 1890).
19 A. 341 (Worrall v. Pyle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kline v. Kachmar
61 A.2d 825 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Jarvis v. Bell
146 A. 153 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Creachen v. Bromley Bros. Carpet Co.
63 A. 195 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
Powell v. Agricultural Insurance
2 Pa. Super. 151 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)
Nesbitt v. Turner
26 A. 750 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)