Goldstrohm v. Stinner

Decided January 3, 1893

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1893-01-03

Appeal, No. 129, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, Peter Stinner, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1891, No. 520, on verdict for plaintiff, Charles F. Goldstrohm.- Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. At the trial, before Stowe, P. J., defendant claimed that the goods were sold to his sons, and not to himself. Defendant’s counsel, in his address to the jury, argued that the reason defendant was sued was because the sons were irresponsible.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1926

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-01-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1There is but a single specification of error in this case, and that is to a portion of the charge of the court. We cannot say it contains any serious error. There was but a single question of fact in the case, and that was, whether the plaintiff sold his stock of goods to the defendant, or to his sons. The jury have *30found that' he sold them to the defendant, and there is nothing in that portion of the charge of the learned judge assigned as error .that would justify us in reversing the judgment.

¶2Judgment affirmed.