Green v. North Buffalo Township
| Citation | 56 Pa. 110 |
| Parties | Green <I>versus</I> North Buffalo Township. |
| Decision Date | 11 November 1867 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Before THOMPSON, STRONG, READ and AGNEW, JJ. WOODWARD, C. J., absent
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong county: No. 111, to October and November Term 1866.
J. Boggs and D. Barclay, for plaintiffs in error, cited on 1st and 2d errors: 1 Tidd's Pr. 648; Act of March 21st 1806, § 6, Purd. 46, pl. 1, 4 Sm. L. 329; Proper v. Luce, 3 Pa. R. 65; Commonwealth v. Mechling, 2 Watts 130; Garvin v. Dawson, 13 S. & R. 246. 4th and 5th errors: Baltimore and Ohio Railroad v. Hoge, 10 Casey 214; Field v. Biddle, 2 Dallas 171; Patterson v. Juniata Bank, 4 W. & S. 43. 5th error: Zentmyer v. Mittower, 5 Barr 403; Miller v. Henderson, 10 S. & R. 290. 9th error: Act of Congress June 30th 1864, §§ 151, 152; 2 Bright. Dig. p. 263, pl. 245, 246.
E. S. Golden, for defendants in error, cited on 1st and 2d errors: Stephen's Pl. 51, 276, 405, 433, Rule V.; 1 Chitty Pl 481; Good Intent Co. v. Hatzell, 10 Harris 277. 3d error: Patten v. Minesinger, 1 Casey 393. 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th errors: Fulton v. Hood, 10 Casey 365.
The opinion of the court was delivered, November 11th 1867, by AGNEW, J.
The 1st and 2d errors assigned are without merit. The plea of pending action came too late after the plea of the general issue and was not sufficiently verified.
We discover no error in the rejection of William Huston's declarations. They were not made in his official character and while acting in the business of the township. They were no more than the loose declarations of any other citizen.
The 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th assignments of error may all be considered together.
Rightly understood, the charge of the court left the matters in dispute fairly to the jury. There was no evidence of any false statement of facts as an inducement to the execution of the bond. The court were therefore right in saying they saw no evidence of fraud and no sufficient evidence to alter the terms of the written paper. But the court instructed the jury that if the bond was not read to John, and he could not read and the contents were misrepresented, it would not bind him, and as consequence told the jury the plaintiff could not recover in that event. This was all the evidence justified the court in saying. The argument of the plaintiff in error overlooks the palpable distinction between a defence resting upon facts which are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. Bassler Limestone Co.
...Smith, 78 Pa. 423; Backenstoss v. Stahler, 33 Pa. 251; Good Intent Co. v. Hartzell, 22 Pa. 277; Potter v. McCoy, 26 Pa. 458; Green v. North Buffalo Twp., 56 Pa. 110; Virtue v. Ioka Tribe, 5 Pa. Dist. 634; Immel Herb, 50 Pa.Super. 241; Meikle v. N.W. Nat. Ins. Co., 243 Pa. 557. Cited as to t......
-
Ludwinska v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...Packing Co. v. Butchers' Slaughtering & Melting Ass'n, 211 Mass. 398, 97 N. E. 780. In like tenor are Green v. Northern Buffalo Township, 56 Pa. 110; Schuylkill County v. Copley, 67 Pa. 386, 5 Am. Rep. 441; Stauffer and Stauffer v. Gebhardt, 103 Pa, Super. 300, 157 A....
-
Ralston et Ux. v. Phila. R. T. Co.
...of misrepresentations as to its contents, the instrument is not the deed of the party who signed it (Green v. North Buffalo Township, 56 Pa. 110, 114); but, in order to set aside a solemn written instrument on this principle, the facts alleged for that purpose must be "definitely and distin......
-
Stauffer v. Gebhardt
...misled as to the contents thereof, that it was, in fact, not his deed: Stoever v. Weir, 10 Serg. & R. 25; Green v. North Buffalo Township, 56 Pa. 110; Schuylkill County v. Copley, 67 Pa. 386 [5 Am. Rep. 441]; Templeton v. Shakley, 107 Pa. 370. The testimony of the plaintiff that he was igno......