Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

200 Pa. 27

Blair v. Boring

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 4, 1901

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1901-06-04

Appeal, No. 93, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., May T., 1900, No. 159, on judgment for defendant in case of W. S. Blair v. S. B. Boring and David Reams. Assumpsit on a bond. Before Gordon, P. J. At the trial it appeared- that H. J. Schetting had leased a certain hotel property, situate in the borough of Du Bois, from S. B. Boring.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1927

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1901-06-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1The plaintiff contends that the learned judge of the court below erred in directing the jury to render a verdict for the *29defendant. It is not shown, however, that .the alleged error has any substantial ground to rest upon. A careful consideration of the argument made in his behalf has not convinced us that there is error in the charge or in the direction to the jury which resulted in the verdict complained of. That which the plaintiff has assailed as error appears to be entirely free from it. It seems to us that the direction to the jury was precisely what it should be, and that a submission of the case to the jury for their determination would have been clear error. It follows from this view of the case that the learned judge of the court below committed no error in directing the jury to render a verdict for the defendant.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/200/pa/27 · .json · Public domain