Case Name: Jewell v. Frank, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1912-05-13
Citations: 50 Pa. Super. 193
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 166
Parties: Jewell v. Frank, Appellant.
Judges: Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady and Head, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
Jewell v. Frank, Appellant.
Appeals — Assignments of error — Sufficiency of the evidence — Verdict.
1. The mere assignment of the verdict does not raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury.
2. A mere statement of the appellant’s contention is not a proper assignment of error if it is neither in form nor in substance a specification of error in the charge.
3. An assignment alleging error “in admitting certain testimony ” is in plain violation of the rules.
Submitted April 22, 1912.
Appeal, No. 166, April T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Third Term, 1909, on verdict for plaintiff in case of A. R. Jewell v. M. K. Frank.
Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady and Head, JJ.
Affirmed.
Appeal from judgment of justice of the peace. Before Carnahan, J.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $189.28. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were as follows:
1. That the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
2. That the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence in the case.
3. That the court erred in admitting certain testimony.
4. That it appeared from the evidence, as counsel for defendant contends, that the contract on which the defendant was sought to be charged was a verbal agreement to pay the debt of another, and that this contract, in order that there should be any liability on the part of the defendant, should have been in writing.
Joseph H. Reich, for appellant.
ü. G. Vogan, for appellee.
May 13, 1912:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The verdict was in due form and responsive to the issue raised by the pleadings, and manifestly the question of the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised by assigning the verdict for error. Nor is that question raised by the fourth assignment, which is a mere statement of the appellant's contention. It is neither in form nor in substance a specification of error in the charge. Moreover, it does not appear that a point was presented for binding directions, or that an exception was taken to the charge. The assignment alleging error "in admitting certain testimony" is in plain violation of our rules, and cannot be considered, because no testimony is set forth or even indicated in the assignment.
All of the assignments of error are dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.