Leonard v. Leslie

• Decision Date: 22 May 1903
• Docket Number: 126-1903
• Citation: 23 Pa.Super. 63
• Parties: Leonard v. Leslie, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

23 Pa.Super. 63

Leonard v. Leslie, Appellant

No. 126-1903

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 22, 1903

Argued May 13, 1903

Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Lawrence Co.-1898, No. 1 on verdict for plaintiff in case of Henrietta D. Leonard v Nicholas V. Leslie and James A. Slack.

Issue to determine the title to real estate. Before Rayburn, P. J. specially presiding.

The court gave binding instructions for plaintiff.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for plaintiff.

Appeal quashed.

J. M Martin, with him D. S. Morris and S.W. Dana, for appellants.

Aaron L. Hazen, with him B. A. Winternitz and John G. McConahy, for appellee.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

OPINION

Per Curiam

The plaintiff moved to quash the appeal because the record does not show that, before verdict, an exception was noted to the charge or that the appellant requested before verdict that the charge be reduced to writing from the stenographer's notes and filed of record. The docket entries show that the verdict was rendered on January 12, and that on the following day the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. They show nothing as to an exception to the charge or a request to have it reduced to writing and filed of record. In the stenographer's transcript the proceedings are set down in the following order: First, the defendant excepted " to the general charge of the court and the instructions to the jury as to the law; " second, at the request of their counsel a bill of exceptions was sealed by the presiding judge; third, upon motion of their counsel a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be had was granted; fourth they requested the court to order that the notes of testimony and the charge be reduced to writing and filed by the stenographer, which request was granted. In order to bring the case within the rule laid down in Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492, 40 A. 786, we must assume, without anything in the record or the stenographer's transcript to show it, that all these proceedings were had before verdict. It would seem from the transcript that the exception to the charge, the motion for a new trial and the request to have the testimony and charge transcribed and filed of record were all made on the same day; but as the request to have the evidence and charge transcribed...