Fox v. Fox
| Decision Date | 08 November 1880 |
| Citation | 96 Pa. 60 |
| Parties | Fox <I>versus</I> Fox. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland county: Of October and November Term 1880, No. 251.
A. A. Stewart and John F. Wentling, for plaintiff in error.
H. P. Laird and Hunter & Klingensmith, for defendant in error.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered November 8th 1880.
There is no error in the charge of which the plaintiff in error can avail himself. Nothing is better settled than that error cannot be assigned for an omission of the judge below to charge in a particular way unless his attention was called to it by a special request. In Laughlin v. Clawson, 3 Casey 328, there was a request for specific instructions. The defendant's points were substantially affirmed, and the jury were properly instructed as to what in law was probable cause, and as the facts were in contest they were left to them. Whether the verdict was according to the weight of the evidence it is not our province to consider.
The errors have not been assigned according to the rules of the court. It is only necessary to refer to those rules, and to the opinion of the late Chief Justice THOMPSON in Burkholder v. Stahl, 8 P. F. Smith 371, to which it would be well that the attention of the profession should be again directed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. Pyle
...of the case, when not asked, is not error: Bain v. Doran, 54 Pa. 124; Caldwell v. Holler, 40 Pa. 160; Newman v. Edwards, 34 Pa. 32; Fox v. Fox, 96 Pa. 60; Humes Gephart, 175 Pa. 417; Way v. Martin, 140 Pa. 499; Mundorff v. Wickersham, 63 Pa. 87; Keough v. Leslie, 92 Pa. 424; McNeile v. Crid......
-
Mineral R. & Min. Co. v. Auten
...be assigned for the omission of a judge to charge in a particular way unless his attention was called to it by a special request:" Fox v. Fox, 96 Pa. 60. And in Phila. & R.R. Co. v. Getz, 113 Pa. 214, it was held "In a civil case, when no request is made, the mere omission to charge upon a ......
-
Herstine v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
...v. R.R., 30 Pa. 454; Newman v. Edwards, 34 Pa. 32; Cattison v. Cattison, 22 Pa. 275; Huckestein v. Kelly & Jones Co., 139 P. 204; Fox v. Fox, 96 Pa. 60. evidence showed that there was a violent shock or jolt of the car caused by the negligent coupling, and that plaintiff was injured by the ......
-
Trainor v. Railroad Co.
...Having given the jury the correct rule, if the defendant required more it was its duty to ask express instructions: Fox v. Fox, 96 Pa. 60. 2. A master is bound, when employing a servant, to provide for the servant a safe working place and machinery. It may be that the persons by whom buildi......