Case Name: Sheldrake v. Hobson, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1918-07-10
Citations: 70 Pa. Super. 268
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 123
Parties: Sheldrake v. Hobson, Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 268–268

Head Matter:
Sheldrake v. Hobson, Appellant.
July 10, 1918:
Appeals — Assignments of error — Assignment not self-sustaining.
An assignment of-error in the following form: “the court below erred in discharging defendant’s rule for a new trial, and entering judgment on the verdict,” is not self-sustaining, and justifies a dismissal of the appeal.
Submitted Oct. 24, 1917.
Appeal, No. 123, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1913, No. 4832, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Charles M. Sheldrake v. Arthur Hob-son et al., Individually and now or late trading as Standard Combustion Company.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Affirmed.
Assumpsit for work done and goods furnished. Before Bregy, P. J.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $878.56. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was in the following form:
“The court below erred in discharging defendant’s rule for a new trial, and entering judgment on the verdict.”
J. Joseph Murphy, for appellant.
Frank Smith, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Head, J.,
There is no self-sustaining assignment of error that would support a reversal of the judgment appealed from. This would, furnish ample warrant for quashing the assignment and dismissing the appeal. An examination of the record, however, fully satisfies us it exhibits no reversible error.
The judgment is affirmed.