History
  • No items yet
midpage
Lett v. Kunkle
178 Pa. 273
Pa.
1896
Check Treatment
Pee Ctjbiam,

We find nothing in the testimony that would have warranted the learned trial judge in submitting this case to the jury. He was therefore right in directing them to find in favor of the plaintiff, and in charging them in the language of plaintiff’s fourth point, that “ the note is the final contract of the parties in writing, and there being no competent evidence to go to the jury to impeach the note, the verdict should be for the plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest.” It follows that there was no error in refusing to affirm defendants’ points recited in the third to ninth specifications inclusive. There is nothing in the record that requires further notice. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Lett v. Kunkle
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Nov 9, 1896
Citation: 178 Pa. 273
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 91
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.