Case ID: pa_239/html/0607-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Weiler, Appellant, v. George, et al.
    Practice, Supreme Court — Specifications of error — Buie 28— Quoting evidence.
    
    Where assignments of error relate to the admission or rejection of testimony, and the questions, the rulings of the court thereon and the evidence admitted are not quoted in the specifications, as required by Rule 28, the assignments will not be considered.
    Argued Feb. 4, 1913.
    Appeal, No. 395, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lehigh Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 10, on verdict for defendants in case of John F. Weiler, Assignee of Alfred J. George, v. Ellen George and Alfred J. George, Executors of Jonas George, deceased.
    Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit upon a promissory judgment note in the hands of an assignee. Before Trexler, P. J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
    Verdict for defendant and judgment thereon. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence and instructions to the jury.
    
      Joseph P. Rodgers, with him W. LaMonte Gillette and Milton C. Henninger, for appellant.
    
      George M. Lutz, with him Fred E. Lewis, for appellees.
    March 17, 1913:
   Per Curiam,

The fifth and sixth specifications of error are the only ones that were insisted upon at the argument of this appeal and they are the only ones that give rise to debatable questions. They relate to the admission of testimony offered by the defendants in support of their plea of payment and the testimony admitted is not set out as required by Rule 28. The rule provides that where error is assigned to the admission of testimony, the questions, the rulings of the court thereon and the evidence admitted must be quoted in the specification and that any assignment not in accordance with the rule will be disregarded. The observance of this rule is of importance and notice has been frequently given that it will be enforced.

The specifications of error are dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.