History
  • No items yet
midpage
Sprout, Waldron & Co. v. Eagal
193 Pa. 389
Pa.
1899
Check Treatment
Pep Cukiam,

Plaintiff company’s right to recover in this case depended mainly upon disputed questions of fact which were clearly for the exclusive determination of the' jury. The case was accordingly submitted to them by the learned trial judge with instructions which appear to be substantially accurate and adequate. The verdict in favor of defendant necessarily implies a finding of the material facts in his favor and against the plaintiff company. We find nothing in the record that requires us to sustain any of the specifications of error. There is nothing in any of them that requires discussion.

If the jury erred in rendering a verdict against the weight of the evidence (as to which we intimate no opinion), plaintiff company’s remedy was in the court below, and not here.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Sprout, Waldron & Co. v. Eagal
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Oct 30, 1899
Citation: 193 Pa. 389
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 130
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.