Case Name: R. W. MILLER v. JOHN BALFOUR
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1890-11-03
Citations: 138 Pa. 183
Docket Number: No. 267
Parties: R. W. MILLER v. JOHN BALFOUR.
Judges: Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Clark, Williams, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 183–184

Head Matter:
R. W. MILLER v. JOHN BALFOUR.
APPEAL BY PLAINTIFF PROM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE BUTLER COUNTY.
Argued October 20, 1890 —
Decided November 3, 1890.
Where no exceptions were taken to orders entering a peremptory nonsuit and refusing to take the judgment off, assignments of error specifying the orders for error will not bring up the testimony for the plaintiff, and the action of the court below cannot be reviewed.
Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Clark, Williams, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.
No. 267 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 88 June Term 1889, C. P.
On April 11,1889, R. W. Balfour brought trespass against John Balfour.' The defendant pleaded “ not guilty, and that the defendant owned the property alleged to be taken.”
At the trial on September 26, 1889, an agreement between the parties was minuted, that “ if the plaintiff is entitled to recover in the case, the amount or measure of damages would be ten dollars. And defendant admits that he took ten dollars worth of material from the lease, but claims that he had a right to take it.”
At the close of the testimony, with the foregoing as a starting point, the court, HazeN, P. J., on motion of the defendant, entered judgment of nonsuit; no exception. The plaintiff then moved to take off the judgment, which motion was refused; no exception. Thereupon, the plaintiff took this appeal, specifying that the court erred :
1. In entering the judgment of nonsuit.
2. In refusing the motion to take off the judgment.
Mr. Newton Black (with him Mr. Miller and Mr. McBride),. for the appellant.
Mr. James Bredin and Mr. Charles McQandless, for the ap-pellee, were not heard.
See Bondz v. Penna. Co., ante, 153 ; Anderson v. Oliver, ante, 156.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam:
Judgment affirmed.