specification error in Pennsylvania

1982In the case of Bryn Mawr Bank v. James, 152 Pa. 364 , 25 A. 823 (1893), decided in 1893, Mr. Chief Justice Paxson wrote (we include the entire opinion due to its brevity): Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Paxson, January 16, 1893: The only specification of error is, that the court below erred in striking off the judgment which had been entered in favor of the plaintiff.

1982In the case of Bryn Mawr Bank v. James, 152 Pa. 364 , 25 A. 823 (1893), decided in 1893, Mr. Chief Justice Paxson wrote (we include the entire opinion due to its brevity): Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Paxson, January 16, 1893: The only specification of error is, that the court below erred in striking off the judgment which had been entered in favor of the plaintiff.

1922The appellant’s specification of error is: “The Pro-thonotary erred in sustaining the objection of the defendant to the plaintiff’s cost of printing the paper-hook, amounting to $30.00.” It appeared that the defendant had taken an appeal to the Superior Court from a judgment in this court on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, which appeal was aifirmed in 73 Pa. Superior Ct. 510 .

1913This case cannot be distinguished from Feeney v. Abelson, supra, and the specification of error must be dismissed.

1904This instruction might well have lead the jury to understand that they could base their verdict on a finding of fact of which there was no evidence, and the specification of error must be sustained: Paul v. Kunz, 195 Pa. 207 ; Reel v. Martin, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 340 .

1904This instruction might well have lead the jury to understand that they could base their verdict on a finding of fact of which there was no evidence, and the specification of error must be sustained: Paul v. Kunz, 195 Pa. 207 ; Reel v. Martin, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 340 .

1904In considering a specification of error which calls in question a finding of' fact by the court, we must not lose sight of the familiar principle or rule applicable to the report of a master or to the verdict of a jury.” And in Hancock v. Melloy, 187 Pa. 371 , the court said: “We will not review these findings (of fact) except to ascertain whether there was any evidence to warrant them; we will not nicely weigh testimony to determine which side preponderates, nor carefully compare the statements of contradictory witnesses and pass on their credibility.

1902And that in considering a specification of error which calls in question a finding of fact by the court, we must not lose sight of the familiar principle applicable to the report of a master or to the verdict of a jury: Com. ex rel. v. Stevens, 178 Pa. 543 .

1900Every question raised by this specification of error has been squarely ruled in the recent cases of Wick v. Bredin, 189 Pa. 83 , and Cassell v. Crothers, 193 Pa. 359 , and further comment is unnecessary.

1900Every question raised by this specification of error has been squarely ruled in the recent cases of Wick v. Bredin, 189 Pa. 83 , and Cassell v. Crothers, 193 Pa. 359 , and further comment is unnecessary.