DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 99
Judges: Beaver, Orlady, Porter, Rice
Filed Date: 7/25/1901
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Opinion by
As was said by the trial judge in the court below, in admitting the testimony embraced in the offer, the admission of which constitutes the first assignment of error, the question involved is one of fact. It was a disputed fact. The stock in a building association, belonging to Waldon, was claimed by the plaintiff under an assignment and by the defendants under an attachment issued prior to the assignment. The attachment was dissolved and a second attachment issued which was subsequent to the date of the assignment. The validity of the assignment was, therefore, the vital question. As to the circumstances attending it, the plaintiff and Waldon who made it, both of whom were examined as witnesses, differed radically. Waldon, as between the parties to this issue, is disinterested.
Defendants offered to show that in the second attachment
There was no error in failing to answer the defendants’ points. They assumed too much and their affirmance would have been as erroneous from the plaintiff’s point of view as were the instructions to find.for the plaintiff from the defendants’. The case, when the facts are all in evidence, being for the jury, the court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment reversed and a new venire awarded.