Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Yeates 186

Furry v. Stone

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 15, 1792

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1792-09-15

Special assumpsit. Verdict for the plaintiff at last May assizes for Berks county, for 678I. 13s. 2d. Mr. Todd for the defendant, had moved within ine first four days of the term, for a rule to shew cause, why a new trial should not be granted. Messrs.

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1785

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1792-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sed per Cur.

¶1The words of the rule are express, that the notice must be given ten days at least before the commencement * of the term. It will be to no purpose to make .■ rules, if an interpretation of them directly contrary to L the words is admitted. It is true, that in the case of Bradley’s lessee v. Bradley, tried at Nisi Prius for Dauphin county, the court went into a motion for a new trial, though the full ten days notice had not been given. But in that cause a point of evidence had been reserved at the trial, which had left the whole matter open to inquiry until judgment entered.

¶2Motion dismissed.

¶3The defendant then brought a writ of error to the High Court of Errors and Appeals. The plaintiffs’ counsel upon inspecting the declaration, found that the damages were laid at 500I. though the verdict was for 678I. 13s. 2d. and prayed that the court, while the record was before them, would permit them to enter a remittitur for 178I. 13s. 2d. and take jtidgtnent for the residue; which, on the authority of Pick-wood v. Wright, Hen. Blackst. 643, the court granted, though much opposed by the defendant. (Vide Doug, no, in. Notes. 5 Burr.'2730.)

/1/yeates/186 · .json · Public domain