Harrold v. McDonald
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Harrold v. McDonald, 194 Pa. 359 (Pa. 1900)
45 A. 44; 1900 Pa. LEXIS 392
Brown, Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell
Harrold v. McDonald
Opinion of the Court
The disputed questions of fact which arose on the trial of this case were of such a character that the decision of them necessarily rested with the jury, and it would have been grave error to withdraw them with a binding instruction to find for the defendant. We think the facts were fairly submitted to the jury with a sufficient explanation to enable them to understand precisely the questions they were to dispose of. We see no error in the charge, and an examination of the testimony satisfies us that there was quite enough to sustain the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Simon Harrold v. C. I. McDonald
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Contract — Abrogation of contract — Parol contract. In an action upon a parol contract which the plaintiff alleged had been made to take the place of a written contract which he alleged had been abrogated, a vei-dict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained where the court properly submits the conflicting evidence to the jury, and charges as follows : “ To set aside this contract and for the plaintiff to recover hei’e, he must satisfy you by clear, precise and satisfactory evidence, and not only by clear, precise and satisfactory evidence, but he must do it by two witnesses, or one witness and facts and evidence that you think are equal to another witness on that very subject, on the abrogation of the contract, setting it aside and making a new one.”