Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Pennyp. 424

Williams v. Elliott

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 16, 1884

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1884-01-16

1, of Philadelphia County. Assumpsit by Mary Elliott, William J. Elliott, Catharine C. Elliott, Mary E. Elliott, and Sarah. Held: could be set up to defeat a recovery by the plaintiff. “That the matters of defense., if admissible under the pleadings, is barred by the Statute of'Limitations, received no answer at the hands of the defendant. “The action is grounded on a payment by the legal plaintiff, acting in his capacity as sheriff, to the defendant of a…

Decided 1884-01-16

Per Curiam :

¶1As there is no bill of exceptions in this case, we cannot review the errors assigned. While it was agreed that certain facts specified should be accepted in the trial, as if duly proven, without prejudice to either party to take a writ of error, yet each party reserved the right to object to the admissibility of any one or more of them as evidence in the cause. This destroyed the character of the agreement'as a case stated, and required proper exceptions, as in other cases, to bring the case before us for review. The judge ruled that eight of the separate facts stated were inapplicable or inadmissible, and excluded them from his consideration in the conclusion at which he arrived, yet he was not asked to seal any bill of exceptions.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/4/pennyp/424 · .json · Public domain