ISBN: 1235665879

[EAN: 9781235665875], Neubuch, [PU: General Books LLC], PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 240 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.5in.This… More...

[EAN: 9781235665875], Neubuch, [PU: General Books LLC], PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 240 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.5in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1861. Excerpt: . . . White et at. v. Welsh et al Sumner 107. If the fact of delivery was doubtful, it should have been submitted to the jury: Smyth v. Craig, 3 W. and S. 14. II. The rejection of the testimony mentioned in the first, second, third, and fourth specifications of error as to custom and usage in such cases, was said to be error, on the authority of 1 Gr. Ev. , 292, 294; Syers v. Jonas, 2 Exch. Rep. Ill; Lundy v. Reily, 30 Law Times Rep. 223; Lucas v. Bristow, 27 Law J. Q. B. 364 (N. S. ); Humphrey v. Dale, Id. 390; Carter v. Crick, 28 Law J. Rep. Exch. 238 (N. S. ); Lindsay v. Janson, 28 Id. 315; Watt v. Hoch, 1 Casey 411; Erisman v. Walters, 2 Id. 467. III. The rejection of the evidence mentioned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth specifications was complained of, as it tended to prove that plaintiffs had such control over the sugars as to have removed them at their pleasure. IV. The admission of the testimony relative to the insurance, as set out in the specifications 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20, and which was offered by defendants to show that the policies covered the sugars in question, and that, as this was done with the consent of plaintiffs, it must be inferred that they agreed that its status was correctly described in the policies; was complained of, unless the plaintiffs were allowed to show the meaning of the words used therein according to usage and custom, which they were prevented from doing, contrary to the law as laid down in Keight v. Rhinelander, 1 Johns. 192; Coit v. Com. Ins. Co. , 7 Id. 385; Scott v. Bourdillon, 5 B. and P. 213; Astor v. Union Ins. Co. , 7 Cowen 202; Taylor v. Briggs, 2 C. and P. 528; Brough v. Whitmore, 4 T. Rep. 206; Eyre v. Mar. Insurance Co. , 5 W. and S. 117. As the question of delivery was one of intention, plainti. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN.<