Case ID: pa_149/html/0361-01.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

King, Receiver, Appellant, v. Russell, et al.
    
      Court and jury—Evidence.
    
    The court will not submit to the jury a claim of which there is no evidence.
    Argued May 12, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 3, July T., 1892, by plaintiff, Alexander King, receiver of tbe Juniata Building & Loan Association, from judgment of C. P. Bedford Co., Nov. T., 1884, No. 156, on verdict for defendants, Samuel L. Russell et al., trading as the Bedford County Bank.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Green, Williams, Mitchell and Heydrick, JJ.
    Assumpsit to recover, inter alia, $176, as money had and received.
    On the trial before Baer, P. J., it appeared that plaintiff claimed that one John A. Wishart had deposited with the defendants $176 for dues on his stock in the Juniata Building & Loan Association and that the same had not been paid over by defendants to the association.
    The court charged in part as follows:
    “ They have here a claim of $176 charged to Wishart, which the bank did not pay the association for dues. There is no evidence here to show that $176 or any other sum was deposited in the bank for dues. There is nothing in the case to warrant your taking dues in consideration.” [1]
    Defendants’ fourth point and the answer thereto were as follows:
    Point. “ If the jury believe that Wishart authorized J. DuBois, cashier, to pay his association dues out of his funds in bank, and if the dues were so charged up against his account, then the plaintiff in this case is entitled to recover whatever amount of said dues that were not paid into the association.”
    
      Answer: “We do not see enough of evidence in the case to warrant the consideration of dues.” [2]'
    
      Errors assigned were (1, 2) instructions as above, quoting them.
    
      J. M. Reynolds, for appellant.
    
      John Cessna, for appellee.
    
      May 23, 1892:
   Per Curiam,

A careful examination of this case has not convinced us that the court below committed error. We do not think it necessary to discuss it.

Judgment affirmed.