Watson v. Porzel
158 Pa. 513
Pa.
1893
Check Treatment
Pee Cubtam,

There was no error in admitting in evidence the paper referred to in the first specification of error. Its execution was admitted, and it was clearly evidence of an original undertaking by the defendants’ testator, John Kaiser, to pay for the goods therein specified, upon their delivery to J. A. Miller. Nor was there any error in directing the jury to find in favor of the plaintiffs. Neither of the specifications is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.