Mitchell v. Richmond , 164 Pa. 566 ( 1894 )

Per Curiam,

There is nothing in the third and fourth specifications of error that would justify a reversal of the judgment. The first and second specifications relate to the question of law reserved. That question has been so fully considered and satisfactorily disposed of by the learned president of the court below, in his opinion sent up with the record, that little, if anything, can be added thereto; and we- therefore affirm the judgment on Iris opinion.

Judgment affirmed.