History
  • No items yet
midpage
Lingenfelter v. Williams
7 Sadler 70
Pa.
1887
Check Treatment
Per CURIAM.

The refusal of the court to grant a continuance is not assignable as error. A clear difference exists between withdrawing a portion of the plaintiff’s claim and adding to it, on the eve of the trial. The addition might require evidence with which the defendants are not prepared, and they may therefore be surprised. Not so the withdrawal of a part of the claim, so that the defendants will require less evidence to defend against it.

Whether the notes were paid was a question of fact. That there was evidence tending to prove they were not paid cannot be doubted. It, therefore, became a question of fact for the jury, to which it was well submitted. No assignment of error is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Lingenfelter v. Williams
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: May 23, 1887
Citation: 7 Sadler 70
Docket Number: No. 97
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.