seventh assignment error in Pennsylvania

1974Commonwealth v. Paquette, 451 Pa. 250 , 301 A.2d 837 (1973); Commonwealth v. Agie, 449 Pa. 187 , 296 A.2d 741 (1972).

1974Commonwealth v. Paquette, 451 Pa. 250 , 301 A.2d 837 (1973); Commonwealth v. Agie, 449 Pa. 187 , 296 A.2d 741 (1972).

1974Commonwealth v. Paquette, 451 Pa. 250 , 301 A.2d 837 (1973); Commonwealth v. Agie, 449 Pa. 187 , 296 A.2d 741 (1972).

1974Commonwealth v. Paquette, 451 Pa. 250 , 301 A.2d 837 (1973); Commonwealth v. Agie, 449 Pa. 187 , 296 A.2d 741 (1972).

1942Co., 259 Pa. 372, 377 , 103 A. 55 : “In the seventh assignment of error it is alleged that the court below erred in sustaining an objection to a question put to plaintiff by his counsel.

1942Co., 259 Pa. 372, 377 , 103 A. 55 : “In the seventh assignment of error it is alleged that the court below erred in sustaining an objection to a question put to plaintiff by his counsel.

1937See People v. Mitchell, 266 N. Y. 15 , 193 N. E. 445 ; People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333 , 202 P. 51 , and State v. Dalton, 206 N. C. 507 , 174 S. E. 422 .

1937See People v. Mitchell, 266 N. Y. 15 , 193 N. E. 445 ; People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333 , 202 P. 51 , and State v. Dalton, 206 N. C. 507 , 174 S. E. 422 .

1937See People v. Mitchell, 266 N. Y. 15 , 193 N. E. 445 ; People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333 , 202 P. 51 , and State v. Dalton, 206 N. C. 507 , 174 S. E. 422 .

1937See People v. Mitchell, 266 N. Y. 15 , 193 N. E. 445 ; People v. Peete, 54 Cal. App. 333 , 202 P. 51 , and State v. Dalton, 206 N. C. 507 , 174 S. E. 422 .

1924There was no error in that disposition of the points in this case; when so answered, the court had already affirmed defendant’s fourth point as follows: “While the burden of proving such a contemporaneous parol contract as that relied on by the defendant, is on him, all that is required of him is to support his position by evidence that is clear, precise and indubitable.” It is settled that “......whether the evidence reaches this degree or not is a question for the jury”: Sulkin v. Gilbert, 218 Pa. 255, 260 ; the jury will “determine whether it should carry conviction to the mind”: Bruce v. L

1924There was no error in that disposition of the points in this case; when so answered, the court had already affirmed defendant’s fourth point as follows: “While the burden of proving such a contemporaneous parol contract as that relied on by the defendant, is on him, all that is required of him is to support his position by evidence that is clear, precise and indubitable.” It is settled that “......whether the evidence reaches this degree or not is a question for the jury”: Sulkin v. Gilbert, 218 Pa. 255, 260 ; the jury will “determine whether it should carry conviction to the mind”: Bruce v. L

1923The former recovery conclusively established that the structure as then maintained was a nuisance and injurious to plaintiff’s right; if the structure remained the same and continued to discharge water into plaintiff’s house, the plaintiff was entitled to such punitive damages as would compel the defendant to abate the nuisance: Ellis v. Academy of Music, supra. The seventh assignment of error is sustained.

1920The defendant’s point asking that a verdict be directed in its favor should have been affirmed: Corcoran v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 203 Pa. 380 ; and the seventh assignment of error is sustained, as is the eighth, complaining of the refusal of the court below to enter judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto.

1919As was said by the President Judge of this court in the case of Spitzel v. Hunt, 39 Pa. Superior Ct. 631 : “Such a statement coming from the bench would control, or at least very seriously affect, the determination of the jury.” The seventh assignment of error is sustained.

1915The measure of damages to be applied to the facts in this case would be the expenses and loss the plaintiff had been put to in getting his property back, including any loss incurred by its seizure and detention: Hyde v. Kiehl, 183 Pa. 414 .

1911Each assignment should show an exception filed and the disposition made of it by the court.” And in Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quigley, 225 Pa. 605 , it was held, as set forth in the syllabus, “Assignments of error to findings of fact and law, although showing that exceptions were filed, are defective if the dismissal of the exceptions is not assigned for error.” In the seventh assignment of error complaint is made of the overruling of the exceptions of the plaintiff to the order of the court below made on May 5, 1910, and to the form of decree then suggested by the court.

1904An assignment of error to the entire charge of the court, without pointing out a specific error, will not be considered by this court: Drenning v. Wesley, 189 Pa. 160 ; Fitzpatrick v. Union Traction Co., 206 Pa. 335, 337 .

1904An assignment of error to the entire charge of the court, without pointing out a specific error, will not be considered by this court: Drenning v. Wesley, 189 Pa. 160 ; Fitzpatrick v. Union Traction Co., 206 Pa. 335, 337 .

1896To acquire a settlement by leasing under clause III. sect. 9 of the act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 539, the lease need not be in writing and the rent need not be paid in money; it may be paid in the equivalent of money, labor or other services: Beaver v. Hartley, 11 Pa. 254 ; Laporte v. Hillsgrove, 95 Pa. 269 .

1896To acquire a settlement by leasing under clause III. sect. 9 of the act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 539, the lease need not be in writing and the rent need not be paid in money; it may be paid in the equivalent of money, labor or other services: Beaver v. Hartley, 11 Pa. 254 ; Laporte v. Hillsgrove, 95 Pa. 269 .