LAW.coLAW.co

Arthur Frothingham, Plff. in Err., v. Laflin & Rand Powder Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania1886-03-08
8 Sadler 28

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Per Curiam:

The price per keg to be paid for the powder was a question of fact. The evidence was conflicting. The substance and general tenor of the charge are correct. In the absence of any specific instructions being asked for, the omission to charge more fully on the evidence constitutes no sufficient cause for reversing this; judgment. Judgment affirmed.