First National Bank v. Rogers , 198 Pa. 627 ( 1901 )

Pee Otteiam,

A careful perusal of all the testimony in the case shows that ■ the question of fact involved was for the determination of the jury. No error appears in the charge of the court, and the opinion refusing the motion for a new trial furnishes a complete and satisfactory answer to the appellant’s contention. As none of the numerous assignments of error would warrant a reversal of the judgment, they are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.