History
  • No items yet
midpage
Heist v. Blaisdell
48 A. 259
Pa.
1901
Check Treatment
Per Curiam,

A careful perusal of all the testimony in the case, of the charge of the court and of the numerous specifications of error, has not disclosed adequate cause for setting aside the judgment and verdict and ordering a new trial. We therefore dismiss the twenty-five specifications of error and affirm the judgment entered by the learned court below.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Heist v. Blaisdell
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Feb 18, 1901
Citation: 48 A. 259
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 419
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.